With my reputation as a life-long and somewhat outspoken liberal, some can be excused for assuming that I was glad to hear that Mr. Kirk was assassinated. This is not so. I am most definitely not glad of it.
Primarily, having lost a parent in my youth, I empathize with the loss his wife and children are suffering. Though his children are younger than I was—I was almost six when my mother died—such a loss effects the entire family, and for a long time. I still feel the effects of my mother’s death, a lifetime later, and given Kirk’s large-sized life and the manner of his death, I know his family will feel it forever. Nothing to be glad of, there.
Also, I lived through a period marked by political assassinations. From JFK and MLK and RFK to Milk and Moscone and Sadat, I’ve experienced the gut-wrench of seeing a hero struck down, the rage of having one man’s bullet steal the hope of multitudes, and the despair as that rage boiled up, spilled over, and engendered an escalation that led to more violence, more hatred, more division.
And then there’s the fact that political assassinations never bring about the result desired. Assassins see their act as the simple solution to a complex problem, but all their crimes do is create new sets of problems and embolden their victim’s supporters, exacerbating tensions and giving new life to old hatreds. We see this happening now, too, and I am not glad of it.
I was not a fan of Kirk’s outlook and philosophy, and found much of it backward-looking and hate-filled. However, I’ve learned that there are many in my circle who, before this week, had never even heard of Charlie Kirk. It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that there are many right-leaning folks who were likewise ignorant of Kirk’s message and activism. Until now. Thus, rather than silencing Kirk’s message, this assassination has the unintended effect of amplifying his message, presenting it to more people who might find it acceptable. It transforms messenger into martyr, and I don’t see this as a positive.
Amid all this, there’s the ridiculous tendency for pundits and politicians and performers to keep score. An assassin’s motives are, to my mind, largely irrelevant, because the crime is indefensible. So, regardless of whether Kirk’s assassin was an alt-right reactionary or an ultra-left-wing anarchist, the end results are the same. Understanding motives is only relevant when discussing radicalization in the aggregate; when we talk about individuals, it only serves to rile and enrage and justify finger-pointing tirades.
Finally, there’s the permission structure the assassin has provided Kirk’s supporters. By murdering a man who was—let’s face it—simply exercising his rights to freedom of speech, Kirk’s assassin has given our nascent autocracy the perfect excuse to ratchet up their own rhetoric, prosecute political enemies, label criticism as “hate speech” (which is protected by the First Amendment and legal precedent*, by the way), attack/doxx/fire private citizens for expressing opinions, and manipulate corporations, markets, and media that don’t hew to the prescribed orthodoxy.
None of this—none of it—makes me glad. None of it is good. None of it is helpful. None of it solves anything.
So . . . what to do?
The only thing that has helped me avoid absolute despair this week is this: be kind. Especially—and this is the hard part—be kind to those you encounter who may be grieving over the death of someone they admired. Why? Because a lot of people who admired Kirk are unaware of his more incendiary and regressive views, having only been exposed to his more faith-based and patriotic messaging. Also, there are those who, as mentioned, were unaware of Kirk in general, but who see the assassination of a right-wing firebrand as an attack on their world view. Being kind to these folks, right now, might allow you to have a reasoned discussion where everyone is able to agree that Kirk’s assassination is not something that makes us glad, even though we disagreed with him. Naturally, there are those who are wholly on-board with what Kirk was laying out there, but even then, being kind is useful, as it protects us from entering into useless arguments.
That’s my take on things. I will never be glad that someone is assassinated.
*Info on the SCOTUS precedent (for what it’s worth these days) can be read about via this link to Matal v. Tam
Kurt R.A. Giambastiani 