Charlie Kirk, political violence, and common morality

By Cianan Sheekey

Paraphrasing intellectual Noam Chomsky, free speech extends to all or extends to no one. It is a grave reflection on our democracy that a rejection of political violence needs to be said, let alone justified to those who try to rationalise it.

Political activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination was horrifying. He was fatally shot while publicly debating with students at Utah Valley University. A husband and father of two, Kirk was a vocal political voice deeply committed to his ideology. He frequented college campuses, such as the one where he was assassinated, opting to confront others, in large public spaces. A well-known figure on social media, Kirk valued the importance of youth politics, founding the sprawling youth organisation Turning Point USA to host gatherings that encouraged students and young adults to engage in discussions on the issues of the day. President Trump reflected on Kirk as a man who “inspired millions”, calling for prayers and the half-masting of the US flag nationwide in his honour.

This portrayal of events is intentionally apolitical. In fact, nowhere in this article does it once mention Kirk’s position on the ideological spectrum. While it is unlikely that any readers are unaware of his stances, that is not how victims of political violence should be defined.

Political violence should be universally viewed as abhorrent, based on a shared morality, not a relative partisan alignment.

Political violence comes in the form of a perilous feedback loop. Its roots are complex, the result of a systematic dearth of faith in democracy and human empathy. Figures who have reached millions, regardless of whether it is for or against their cause, can be taken from us in an instant. If Kirk didn’t champion your belief structure, that doesn’t prevent the next victim of political violence from being your political hero.

America has, for generations, suffered from assassinations. Kirk is just the most recent in a long history, which includes former Minnesota House speaker Melissa Hortman mere months ago, as well as John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, with failed attacks mounted on Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and sitting President Trump, who was almost assassinated twice in the span of 64 days. This decade has also seen the much-discussed murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Ben Thompson and a plot to kill US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. While the threatening strain of political violence has been apparent for decades, deepening partisanship and the creation of tight-knit social media communities have only exacerbated the issue.

It should go without saying that personal vexations don’t excuse immorality – punching someone, regardless of their nature, is wrong because it is the action that is of importance, not who is being punched, and that principle extends to more extreme forms of violence.

To some, the assassination was cause for celebration, reflecting a jarring lack of empathy, particularly for his two, now fatherless, children. Figures such as the president-elect of the Oxford Union welcomed the attack, a microcosm of the issue at hand.

This discussion ought to transcend traditional political lines, but it hasn’t. Kirk’s death has now become central in a web of other debates. It is unfair to diminish these debates, as the issues that matter to people, their views on those issues, and the freedom to discuss them, underpin a functioning democracy – but so does not being shot in doing so.

The term 'Orwellian' is often exaggerated when deployed. However, it is fitting in this context. Some are accepting violence for a vague political goal, forgetting basic humanity for the sake of a perceived political edge. For those familiar with 1984, it is as if Kirk had committed a thoughtcrime through his beliefs, and this was his punishment.

The grief of Kirk’s family consumes my thoughts. Political violence needs to be rooted out of any self-respecting democracy, for if we do not, we are headed toward the death of free speech and decency. To paraphrase, Alexis De Tocqueville, in the same manner in which this article began, liberty is to die without morality.

Image: Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune via REUTERS