Last week, right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated as he spoke at Utah Valley University. And while I can’t recall a thing Kirk ever advocated for that I agreed with, I denounce using violence as a political tool. Debate and public discourse — a cornerstone of our democracy — cannot happen if people are killed for sharing their views in the public sphere. I am a person who always shares my opinion, and it’s scary to think that for some in the United States, that can mean a death sentence. The beauty of a democratic system is that views can be shared without the fear of violence, but I fear that has changed.
Kirk’s views were not unique, with conservatism on the rise among Generation-Z Americans, especially young men. And for those who condemn his values — many of which are hateful, divisive, and frankly, racist — I still believe you should be very upset about what happened to him. Here’s why: His status as a figure is replaceable, and his making into a right-wing martyr will only grow support for his views. Reactions from the left, especially those grounded in saying he somehow brought this tragedy upon himself, dilute valid arguments denouncing his hateful rhetoric.
Just as with any celebrity, many people formed parasocial relationships with Kirk by regularly consuming his content — much of which was delivered in a style that was meant to form affinity between the viewer and Kirk himself, and channel disdain for those who thought differently. With Kirk sharing his political views and debating with people all over the country, some felt that this humanized and validated their own extreme views. His status as a podcaster rather than a politician seemingly allowed for more authenticity in his delivery.
Our system is broken, people are angry, and for some, that predicament is used to justify violence. Many people praised Luigi Mangione for assassinating a CEO just last year, which drew attention to some of the injustices in our health care system related to health insurance and quality of care. School shootings are on the rise — with over 47 taking place this year alone. Not to mention the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which has taken the lives of or injured over 200,000 individuals — an unimaginable number.
I have heard too many people channeling that anger and the inability of our government to fix these issues as a reason to celebrate Kirk’s murder. There’s a blatant irony to praising an assassination as a way to advocate for gun control — not to mention that a targeted strategic attack with a hunting rifle is inherently different from the problems caused by unregulated assault-style weapons used in school shootings.
Kirk’s assassination goes beyond issues of gun violence prevalent in American society and ultimately speaks to an increased normalization of violence more broadly — brought on by growing political polarization and fearmongering as a means to stifle conversation and what should be at the core of our politics: cross-party dialogue and compromise.
Americans are both desensitized and extremely reactive to violence at the same time. Unfortunately, a lot of it falls along party lines. Let me remind those of you who need it: This is not normal. Assassinations should never be normal, and if you rest your outrage on the political opinions of the victim, I fear we have lost the plot of our humanity in a way that is cruel and unusual.
Kirk’s killing or the tragic murder of Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina should not be used to advance political motivations or stereotype an entire side of our political spectrum. We exist in a renewed age of normalized political violence that is ever-growing as hatred for thy neighbor spreads like the plague around our country.
I am in no way trying to be in the middle of the road, but on this specific issue, I believe the answer lies beyond political debates. This is not strictly about the gun violence epidemic, nor should it be an opportunity for those who are mourning Kirk to be criticized for not speaking out about other world issues. Renewed and repeated political violence — on both sides — shows that for some, the time for cooperating may be past us, but I truly hope for the sake of our democracy that this pessimistic view is incorrect. Kirk was a hateful individual with dangerous rhetoric, but this can be said while also acknowledging the tragedy that was his assassination.
MIA VESELY is a College senior from Phoenix studying philosophy, politics, and economics. Her email is mvesely@sas.upenn.edu.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated “the ongoing genocide in Gaza … [had] taken the lives of over 200,000 individuals.” The cited article from The Guardian says more than 200,000 Palestinians had been killed or injured. The DP regrets the error.
