Yesterday, Wednesday Sept 10, the news of the murder of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political commentator known for his debates, rocked both sides of the politcal aisle. Here is what you need to know about the incident, and the aftermath, which has enflamed the internet and embroiled many in heated discourse.
Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck from the top of a building about 200 yards away while hosting a college debate event at Utah Valley University. The campus initiated a lockdown and students, faculty, and staff, were escorted to a safe zone away from the scene. While two suspects were apprehended, both were released, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that the killer is still at large.
This shooting is added to a growing list of acts of political violence, following the shooting on June 14 of Minnesota Democrat lawmakers John Hoffman and his wife Yvette, as well as Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, who were killed. The perpetrator in this instance was Vance Boelter, noted to be right-wing oriented.
Additionally, this follows the assassination attempt of President Trump during his campaign tour in Pennsylvania on July 13 of last year, the alleged killer being Thomas Matthew Crooks, a registered Republican.
While the motive and affiliation of Kirk’s killer is not yet known, many have assumed that they are a left-wing extremist, and targeted Kirk due to his conservative rhetoric. Although this seems likely, it is unsafe to make unbased claims or place blame on a particular group based on the actions of an unknown individual.
Both Democrat and Republican politicians have released statements condemning political violence and stressed that there is no place for this action in our democracy. However, rather than be united in this sentiment, thousands of people have become divided in their stance on the issue; no matter what social media app you open, you are guaranteed to see content posted from people oriented on either side using Kirk’s death to push a political agenda.
Many on the right have posted their sympathies to Kirk’s family and friends, but also have been quick to blame any and all on the left for the incident, especially commentators and lawmakers. Not only are the radically liberal to blame, but anyone who is not as conservative as Kirk was in his views. Many Christians have lauded him as a martyr, who lived a “Christ-like” life. Much of the conservative outcry has been the concern that those who speak out about their beliefs, especially from a platform of any kind, now must worry about being killed over it.
Some who actively disliked or disagreed with Kirk have stated that they believe due to his controversial and often unempathetic values that he deserved his fate, and in some cases celebrated the news online. Others noted that Kirk himself said in an interview that it is “worth it” to have gun deaths to keep the rights of the second amendment. Many have recirculated videos of Kirk making other claims, like the uselessness of empathy, that seem ironic in light of his death and cite his intolerance of opposing views as a “reason” to be killed. It has been pointed out that others who have suffered politically motivated deaths have not been afforded the same sympathy as Kirk’s.
President Trump made a statement lamenting Kirk’s death and attributed it to “demonizing those with which you disagree”, followed almost hypocritically by blaming the attack on the rhetoric of the left, and listing acts of political violence that will not be tolerated while leaving out the very recent Minnesota attacks on Democrats.
He went on to say that his administration will seek out not only those who perpetrate violence against political figures, but also judges, law enforcement, and all others who bring order to our country. It is important to note that Charlie Kirk was not a politician or government official of any kind. While he was affiliated closely with the Republican party and Trump administration, and his death was likely politically motivated, he was not a part of law and order in this country.
Trump went on to use Kirk’s murder to mention contrarian, rather than unifying, issues such as citizenship, rule of law, and religion, encouraging Americans to embrace the conservative values that Charlie Kirk believed in and stood for, many of which are just as radical as the values of his opposition that he so often condemns.
The problem here is that this statement, only encourages division. It ignores the fact that the Minnesota and Pennsylvania shooters were both right-wing affiliated, and that political violence is rising from both sides.
It also frames all resistance to any policy put forth by this administration as terrorist activity. This assassination was a heinous, irreprehensible act, but it cannot mean the repression of any group whose opinions oppose Kirk’s, and by extent the Trump administration.
The reason that there would be violence and backlash against ICE agents, is because of the lack of due process, racial profiling, and fearmongering that is inherent in the agency’s operations. It is not due to controversial opinions and rhetoric; it is the result of unconstitutional actions. This does not excuse this violence, only shows that it is different from assassination.
It is dangerous to frame Charlie Kirk’s death as a reason to push any agenda. Human life is a sacred thing, and a society that accepts or encourages the murder of those they disagree with is a failing one.
The fact that this happened on a college campus is a reminder that even here at USAO, we have to be mindful of this: to keep our political disagreements civil and respectful, no matter the circumstance. Be considerate of the opinions of others, and don’t get caught up in polarizing, divisive, and destructive messaging that is all too prevalent in the wake of this tragedy.
Thomas Buchanan is a fourth-year art major at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma.
