I have two thoughts to share about Charlie Kirk.
First, I did not expect his assassination to affect me so profoundly. I did not follow him on social media, and we certainly weren’t of one mind on many issues. But he was a debater—that was his whole schtick really—and someone with no institutional power. I’ve always respected the clash of ideas as a way to get to the truth. Words are not violence. They’re how we can bridge the divide between peoples, and come to new and greater understandings of one another and of ourselves.
So the attack on Kirk feels like an attack on the First Amendment, which is to say an attack on America and its values. These are things I hold dear. Kirk is dead today because somebody didn’t like what he had to say, and we should all be more than a little disturbed by that.
Second, the reaction to Kirk’s death by the progressive left has left me aghast. I have long considered Trump and his ilk a cancer on the body politic, subverting or attempting to overthrow constitutional norms. I have begged his opposition to present a sane alternative. It is clear to me now that this is, for at least the progressive left of the Democratic Party, an impossible ask.
Some of you will undoubtedly believe me incorrect. I defy you then to go onto BlueSky—a leftwing social network founded because Twitter was “too toxic”—and click on the comments to any story—and I mean ANY STORY—about Kirk’s death. Tell me then that progressive left is different than the Westboro Baptists or is any more sane than the Trumpian right. If these be your bedfellows, I would encourage you to reexamine your affiliations.
I do not know where this leaves the country so far as a path forward. But I do know that it must include free speech and a willingness to openly debate differing ideas—exactly as Kirk was committed to doing.