Charlie

I listened to just enough Charlie Kirk that my social media algorithms kept feeding me his content. I first encountered him as I was drifting rightward politically. Far from a monster, I saw an affable, intelligent, quick-witted man making nuanced, and sometimes forceful, points on the issues of the day. He could be goofy at times, standing on college campuses debating students who had never had their worldview challenged. But he was persuasive. He changed my mind on some issues and clarified my thinking on others. I suspect many others felt the same.

He had the courage and skill I wish I had. For that, he is inspiring. He never resorted to ad hominem attacks or name calling. He remained remarkably calm considering the vitriol which was spewed his direction. Even if you disagree with his points, you must admit he was logically consistent. He seemed like a genuinely good person, loving father and husband.

For this, the left called him “dangerous” and “hateful.” Many are now celebrating his death or issuing mealy-mouthed condemnations. In reality, his views were close to the American mainstream. Out-of-context quotes are repeated endlessly as if to excuse his murder. A Washington Post reporter was thankfully fired for misquoting him. He was branded a homophobe, yet publicly supported Trump’s global push to decriminalize homosexuality. His actual views were more nuanced than his critics would admit.

That mismatch between what he really argued and what the institutions claimed he stood for reveals the bubble. As one writer put it: if Charlie Kirk was “too dangerous to tolerate,” then our institutions are broken. Kirk was literally the guy saying “debate me.” He wanted to argue ideas out in public. He condemned violence. And yet, he was killed. He was killed and people celebrated. That fact alone exposes the rot.

Admittedly, it is a small fringe celebrating his death. Yet, this is not a “both sides” issue. A recent YouGov poll shows that the far left is five times more likely to condone political violence than the far right. Fully one quarter of the far left say its acceptable to celebrate the death of a political figure. That is how liberal democracy corrodes: first in the rhetoric, then in the justifications. History offers more than enough warnings.

Charlie’s death is especially unsettling for Republicans. Someone tweeted that this had an “archduke Ferdinand” feel to it, not because we expect world war, but because it signals a breaking point. If even a cheerful “debate me” activist can be cast as intolerable, then what hope is there for civil disagreement? All conservatives, and many moderates, know the feeling when our political opponents abandon debate. We are familiar with hiding our views for fear of cancel culture. We live in a cities where people casually post signs that say “kill all Republicans.” Should we stay silent for our own safety?

No. Silence is surrender. Charlie didn’t stop, even knowing the risks.

Charlie was no saint. He was a highly effective communicator who poked holes in weak arguments with humor and skill. That was enough to terrify the institutional left. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he was consistent, nuanced, and principled. That’s more than can be said for most of our public intellectuals and politicians.

Charlie wouldn’t want us to be silent. He’d want us to be courageous.