What did they expect? What did they think was going to happen? The suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk remains at large, his exact motive unknown. But that doesn’t mean Donald Trump was wrong to argue that the “radical Left” contributed to the assassination of a father of two, whose only “sin” was going from college campus to college campus to debate people.
Just consider the obscene reaction to his killing. As footage of Kirk’s assassination circulated – a sudden gout of blood punctuating a comment on gang violence – the ghouls crawled out. One MSNBC commentator appeared to blame Kirk’s “hate speech” and “divisive” behaviour, suggesting that “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions”. The governor of Illinois gave the impression of blaming Trump.
Do you get it? Kirk brought this on himself. If he’d just behaved. If he’d just got with the programme. It could hardly have been more tone-deaf. And it could hardly have been a better summary of the moral abyss now occupied by America’s so-called progressives.
This isn’t the first case of political violence in America – and, of course, there have been recent attacks on progressives, too. A Democrat state representative was assassinated in Minnesota; Salman Rushdie lost an eye in New York; a bullet was centimetres from killing Trump.
But Kirk was a man who gave talks on campuses, who sought to challenge groupthink and open minds. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that seems new. And it’s terrifying. A political assassination targeted at a speaker, used to silence, used to intimidate. And the groundwork is in place for it to happen again.
And whatever the precise motive of Kirk’s killer turns out to be, it’s fair to point out that much of the responsibility for the legitimisation of this sort of violence lies with the Left. It’s spent decades making politics a matter of identity, carving up votes based on who people are rather than what they believe, agitating on race, on belief, on sexuality, inflaming tensions freely to stir up the base. Disagreement is “violence” against “bodies”. The other side winning means you are “erased”. You are called to punch Nazis, kill Terfs, bash the fash. Their words are violence; respond with violence.
Just a few months ago, Kirk had written about the “assassination culture” spreading on the Left; polling had shown an alarming rise in the willingness to applaud political violence. Democratic politicians had talked of their base’s desire for “blood to grab the attention of the press”, to “fight” in a show of force.
Almost every incident has been used to inflame, to whip up fear and hatred of Republicans and the Right, to shatter the fragile consensus upon which American politics is built in order to create a true friend-enemy distinction. It has succeeded. Left-wing politics has slipped seamlessly back into an old tradition of direct action.
Online, they harass, dogpile, insult and threaten. Offline, they turn out on the streets to protest. They seized on the death of George Floyd to burn and loot. They act as a permanent heckler’s veto, shutting events, raising security bills, cowing people into silence while their speakers continue to broadcast.
They must know the risks. They must know that when they talk about white people being evil oppressors, that Trump will destroy your family, that their most unhinged followers are listening. They must know how the smirking jokes about gulags and guillotines will be taken, how the stone-faced warnings of catastrophic defeat and the death of America will land.
“Charlie was the best of America, and the monster who attacked him was attacking our whole country,” said Trump on Wednesday night. But when swathes of the Left began celebrating Kirk’s murder on their favoured social media platforms almost immediately, it’s a chilling reminder that not everyone agrees.
So what now?
Trump is right: The Left has fanned the flames of political violence
Charlie Kirk’s killer’s motive isn’t confirmed. But ‘progressives’ have helped create an environment where violence is seen as legitimate