I don’t have strong thoughts on Charlie Kirk, who was murdered yesterday by an as-yet-unknown assailant for as-yet-unknown reasons. While I’ve seen snippets of his various debates at universities, I haven’t followed him all that closely.
Like my co-blogger Michael Bailey, I of course feel terrible for his wife, children, and others who were close to him. But murder is so commonplace in our society, including yet another school shooting yesterday, that I’m all but inured to it.
Indeed, a longtime Facebook friend called out the “hypocrisy of being upset about the murder of Charlie Kirk but staying silent about the murder of Melissa, Mark & Gilbert Hortman” and I had no idea who the hell they were, much less that they had been murdered. It turns out that Melissa Hortman was the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives and was murdered at her home, along with her husband Mark, by a man who was also targeting a Minnesota State Senator and his wife, back in June. I don’t believe I ever saw the news.
Several Democratic Party leaders, including former President Barack Obama and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, have issued kind statements. Others, not at all surprisingly, are essentially saying that Kirk had it coming because he was a divisive figure. Many, in particular, are calling attention to his declaration, just months ago, “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, was fired from his job as a political analyst at MSNBC for his political analysis of the murder:
During his appearance on Katy Tur Reports, Dowd suggested that Kirk’s rhetoric may have contributed to the violence that claimed his life. Kirk, 31, had a history of rightwing provocation and Christian nationalism, and frequently espoused bigoted rhetoric about Islam, women , LGBTQ+ communities and people of color.
“Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” Dowd said, adding: “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place.”
Dowd also speculated about the circumstances of the shooting, saying: “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration. So we have no idea about this.”
Honestly, my only problem with that is the glibness of the “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration” remark. The rest, while speculative, is hardly arguable.
To be clear, I don’t believe murdering people for expressing even the most vile political ideas is justified. But inflammatory rhetoric inflames. And we live in a hyperpolarized time and are being led by an incredibly polarizing, inflammatory man.
While every election in my memory has been “the most important election of our lifetime,” that rhetoric has intensified geometrically since Trump became the leader of the Republican Party. His opponents have, not without reason, declared that electing him would lead to an existential crisis for American democracy. His first election win was greeted with mass protests and the declaration of a Resistance. His failed re-election bid was treated as a stolen election and led to a violent assault on the Halls of Congress. Two assassination attempts were made on him during his third run. And, now, he’s turning the apparatus of the Executive Branch, including the U.S. armed forces, against his political enemies.
I fear that Charlie Kirk won’t be the last political figure murdered.
