I noticed they tried to ignore the Assassination of Charlie Kirk just like the verboten subjects of Laken Riley, Iryna Zarutska Cliven Bundy, Duke Lacrosse, Ted Stevens case, FISA abuse, IRS targeting tea party groups and ATF Fast and Furious case.
Centering My Thoughts on Kirk’s Assassination
As well as the politics that have followed.
Steven L. Taylor · Thursday, September 18, 2025 · 31 comments
Readers may or may not have noticed that I have not published much over the last several days. Indeed, in looking back at the site, I have had only two substantive posts and two shorter ones (ignoring the Fora and AG announcement posts), which is low for me. Three of those center on the Kirk assassination, although I haven’t actually written much about Kirk himself. I will confess to two long, incomplete drafts that also orbit this subject.
The period of time in question pretty much spans the week since Charlie Kirk was killed on the campus of Utah Valley University. I found the killing upsetting, as did many, and I have been filled with a disquietude, if not a sense of dread, since the event. I think, by the way, that part of why I have avoided writing too much is that I try not to write from a position of emotion (although, yes, much of the Trump administration’s actions do elicit emotional reactions as well).
I’ll start again where I started my post about Trump’s atrocious leadership on this topic. Kirk’s assassination was a tragedy. I know I got a little pushback on that characterization in the comments of that post, but allow me to elaborate. The bottom line is that it is always a tragedy when politics becomes violent, especially when people die.
First, regardless of any other factor, it should be obvious that a 31 one-year being shot in the neck and instantaneously dying is tragic. There is a life partner who is now a widow and two small children who won’t remember their father. This is, on a human level, a tragedy. And, yes, I understand that Kirk said a lot of hurtful and hateful things (more on that later). That doesn’t change the human element of this.
I would add that a lot of young people, sitting at what was for all practical purposes an entertainment event, had to witness a cold-blooded murder happen right in front of their eyes. Many will likely struggle with fear and anxiety as a result for years to come.
Second, and I will state that this is the main source of disquiet for me, this event was a tragedy for the nation because I knew from the moment I heard he had been shot, and even before I knew he was dead, that this event would be weaponized by the Trump administration.
The fact that there is any connection whatsoever to the trans issue puts a knot in my stomach because I know that that will fuel hatred and reaction across the country.
Trump’s initial reaction certainly confirmed my fear about the general tenor that was going to guide the present moment. To be honest, the way in which this administration and its allies have used this moment as an attack on free speech and to demonize opponents is stunning. I truly fear whatever the next flashpoint is.
The Jimmy Kimmel thing is worth thinking about. So, yes, Kimmel was wrong to state that the shooter belonged to MAGA, but since when is a comedian or commenter suspended for making a mistake (let alone one that more than one person was making at the time)? If errors led to indefinite suspensions, all of cable news (and cable sports) networks should be nothing more than test patterns.*
Having said that, it is actually stunning (and brazen!) that what Kimmel said (at the link in the previous paragraph) wasn’t some gross joke. It wasn’t even about Kirk specifically (not that the government should be involved in that, either). It isn’t as if he had said something off the chain, because at least the administration would have a fig leaf. Instead, it is pretty much not even bothering to have much of any reason other than he was close enough to the Kirk topic to pretend like it was an outrage.
This is weaponizing a murder for political power. And don’t forget that there is, yet again, a merger issue that the FCC can rule on at the heart of this. Kimmel’s suspension is directly due to abuse of power by the FCC Chair. Further, I am now hearing demands that Kimmel apologize and donate money to Krik’s organization. That is just an attempt in a situation already now steeped in fear of many, many people losing their jobs, a demand that he bend the knee. Keep in mind that Kimmel doesn’t have to just worry about his job, but about all the people who work on the show. That is real pressure that may lead to capitulation. I suspect that Kimmel is probably financially set for life and could certainly find other gainful employment if he loses this show. But he is responsible for a lot of livelihoods here. This is all an authoritarian squeeze.
And please, do not liken it to whatever version of “cancel culture” one might have in one’s mind. This is not someone facing social or even workplace-based pressure over an impolitic statement. This is the FCC pressuring corporations to silence someone they don’t like. Remember that Trump stated on social media that Kimmel “was next” after Colbert’s show was cancelled (also with an FCC Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a corporate merger). We can have a debate over what happened in the past, but this is a very different situation despite whatever surface similarities one can conjure..
This leads to the second major theme about all of this that I want to comment upon: the beatification of Charlie Kirk as a saint of free speech. James Joyner already wrote a version of a post that was rolling around in my head, Charlie Kirk Was No Ezra Klein.
By the way, lest someone think I am being hyperbolic with the phrase “the beatification of Charlie Kirk as a saint of free speech,” I am in part reacting to things like this:
Via WWSB: New College plans to erect statue of slain activist Charlie Kirk on campus.
Via Chron.com: Charlie Kirk statue frenzy sweeps Texas. “Efforts to construct a statue to memorialize Charlie Kirk are gaining steam across the state, with a sea of voices calling for monuments to be placed at Texas universities and the Capitol.”
Via USAT: Republicans push for a monument to Charlie Kirk in the Capitol.
Via HuffPo: Glenn Beck Compares Charlie Kirk To MLK Jr., Wants Streets Renamed For Him. Beck is not the only one to make the MLK comparison, which is ironic given via the following via the CBC:
At a December 2023 political conference hosted by his Turning Points USA group, Wired magazine reported that Kirk decried not only Martin Luther King Jr., calling the civil rights leader “awful” and “not a good person,” but also the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex and national origin, and prohibited segregation.
Setting aside a strange desire to set Kirk in literal stone, I even think about (to link back to James’ post and to one by Matt Bernius) the following from Ezra Klein immediately after the assassination.
Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
I will agree in part, but also strenuously dissent in part.
Yes, doing politics via words is the right way to do politics. But that is a low bar and also obscures what words are used, as well as the manner in which they are deployed. James’ post on the latter is worth a read. The fact of the matter is that Kirk was not a debater simply “showing up…and talking to anyone who would talk to him.” He was a performance artist making money off of these events. The word that has been in my brain since the day of the shooting has been provocateur. Kirk was not debating or engaging in a reasoned interchange of ideas. He was hoping to provoke college students into making social media content.
As such, Klein is flatly wrong to call him “one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion” because I do not believe his main goal was to persuade anybody. At best, like any ideologue, he was so certain of his own positions that he thought ridiculing others was actually “debate,” because he was just declaring truth as he saw it.** He reminds me of a travelling preacher who used to visit the university where I worked. There was an area where he was allowed to operate (and others as well), and he would mostly just try to goad the students into interacting. Even my predominantly conservative Christian students from central Alabama found him annoying on balance.
A more accurate statement would be to pick another topic Klein is very interested in, to state that Kirk is one of the era’s most effective practitioners of attention. Kirk was a master at getting attention and monetizing it. And yes, in using it for political goals. And yes, using attention for political purposes is thoroughly acceptable as a generic matter.
Indeed, that is what Trump is a master at, and I wouldn’t say, from perspective at least, that he is doing politics the right way, since I object to leaders who purposely divide citizens, militarize cities, engage in extralegal executions on the high seas, and deport people to torure prisons without due process (to name just a few of my problems with this administration).
Beyond the question of persuasion v. attention, Kirk’s words simply did not rise to the level of “practicing politics the right way” in the fullness of that phrase.
To wit, denigrating women is not practicing politics the “right way” nor is denigrating Blacks.
I mean, sure, those are certainly protected by the First Amendment, and speech is to be preferred to actual subjugation. But let’s not pretend that saying the following is persuasion or debate,
If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they’re comin’ out and they’re saying it for us! They’re comin’ out and they’re saying, “I’m only here because of affirmative action.
Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
Or
If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
Or
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024.
There is also a set of quotes about marriage and women submitting to their husbands, including Taylor Swift. On the one hand, do a lot of people have First Amendment-protected views about marriage that I would not agree with?*** Yes, of course. Is he free to say that Taylor Swift should take Travis Kelce’s name? Sure. But don’t tell me that any of that was debate or persuasion. It was all designed to preach to the choir or provoke others.
There are more here:
Via The Guardian: Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’
Via the CBC: Some of Charlie Kirk’s most controversial takes.
Via FactCheck.org: Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk’s Words.
Again, yes, using words is what we expect from normal politics. Kirk had every right to say what he said. But the notion that he was the pinnacle of persuasion and open debate is not accurate.
In my assessment, Kirk was a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a purveyor of the great replacement theory, and a white/Christian nationalist.
He had every First Amendment right to hold all of those views. And I have the same right to oppose those views and to hold the view that having those views makes it a stretch to assess Kirk as benignly as Klein did in his column. Certainly, I would argue that such views cut against beatification. Granted, one’s miles may vary, given the free speech and free thought of it all.
To return to the notion of the travelling preacher, Kirk far more fits the mold of the roving evangelist than he does some wandering philosopher. The travelling preacher shows up, like the one on campus that I mentioned above, believing that he has come to a nest of apostasy to proclaim the truth. He does hope to save souls via his sermonizing and likely is happy to try and persuade the poor heathens on campus that they are bound for Hell. But the hallmark of such speech is not debate. It is not a reasoned interchange. The preacher knows he is right. The scripture is inerrant, and God has His message, for which the preacher is only a conduit.
Real intellectual interchange, and truly doing politics right, has to include the possibility of changing one’s own mind. Real debate contests seek facts and shared understanding.
Science and expertise (and therefore real debate) have to contain the possibility of being wrong.
The preacher seeks to stir the heart and convict the spirit of the received truth. It is not, ultimately, about reason. The evangelist wishes you to recognize your wretched, sinful state and to see that only Christ can save you. It isn’t a debate at all.
I know that the analogy to Kirk is not perfect, but the basics are quite similar. Kirk and people like him are not looking to learn. They may claim to wish to teach, but even then, it is more about received knowledge than debate and reasoned acceptance of new knowledge. They are looking to pummel the listener into compliance. And the way Kirk (or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ben Shapiro) was a controlled environment using specific rhetorical tools to produce the outcome he wanted (again, see James’ post).
To be clear: it is perfectly legal and socially acceptable to proselytize. Creating social media content by being provocative is a business model that I may personally not be a fan of, but it is not some illegitimate enterprise. However, none of that is about persuasion and debate in any pure sense, let alone at the level of being “one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.”
I would note, not that it needs to be said, but I will say it anyway: none of this justifies, in any way, violence against Kirk. But just because violence was tragically deployed doesn’t mean we can’t be honest in assessing Kirk’s work.
I would note, too, that his Professor’s Watchlist, which I noted here, is not the act of a free speech champion. It is quite the opposite.
I could go on here, but this is already a long post.
A third point I want to place in this context: it is grotesque to watch the administration and its allies memory-hole political violence aimed at the left and/or perpetrated by those clearly identifiable as on the right. (I will note and confess I do not like such broad, sweeping categories, but they will have to do for now.)
It is almost cliché at this point to bring up the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband, not to mention the attempted murder of John Hoffman. But that was of a piece with a broader problem with political violence in the US. But more significantly, we are memory-holing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, which is the closest thing to a coordinated usage of political violence in recent history, and it came from the right. And, in the case of J6, it was formally, legally forgiven by this administration.
I am not sure that I have actually finished all my relevant thoughts, but I think I have gotten down some basics that will provide context for further posts. The dam of my mental processes may have been cleared.
In short:
I am opposed to political violence, most especially assassinations of figures with whom we disagree (this should go without saying, but such are the times we live in that I feel the need to say it anyway for a number of reasons).
Kirk’s killing was a tragedy on a personal level for his friends and family (don’t allow yourself to forget basic human compassion at a moment like this).
Kirk’s killing was a tragedy for us as a country because it is deepening Us v. Them notions and is allowing the Trump administration an excuse to act in further authoritarian ways.
Also, something that should go without saying, I will say I say for clarity: no one should celebrate an assassination, and a number of people should have just stayed the hell away from social media in the aftermath of the event.
The firing spree on this topic is not exactly a celebration of free speech (this seems worth noting given the overall context).
Yes, Kirk used words, and that is the proper way to do politics.
No, Kirk was not engaging in debate and persuasion. He was engaging in a combination of political evangelism, provocation, and monetized attention-gathering. Those are all perfectly fine, but none of them make him a free speech saint.
Political violence is a real problem in the US, and I fear it will get worse. Indeed, I know it will get worse if top leaders, such as the president, use this event to further divide us as well as to ignore/forgive violence done by his side (broadly defined).
Thanks to any who managed to read this far, as I needed to get these words out so that other words could come next.
One last thought. Under normal political conditions, the thing we would worry about after an act of violence like this was usually threefold: 1) with we know why the person did it, 2) will they face justice, and 3) did they work alone. Out focus is on the act and the perpetrator. Also under normal conditions, national leadership would be trying to calm things down. Instead, we find ourselves in a situation in which the sitting administration is using this event as an excuse to extend authoritarian power.
*Kids, ask your grandparents.
**I saw a clip the other day when he was talking to a trans student, and he shifted the “debate” to “what is a man?” He clearly wanted to make an essentialist biological argument. But just shouting “what is a man” as a way of avoiding the other things the student was saying isn’t a debate.
Indeed, I recently watched The Planet of the Apes, and there is a scene in which Taylor is trying to prove that he can reason, but the questions are all about scripture and doctrine. Just shouting a doctrinal position isn’t debate.
***See some of what I wrote about here, for example. Or, to pick another example, I know people who think that women should never seek a divorce from a man except for infidelity. I disagree with this notion.
