Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, the Weaponized Martyr

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Last week I wrote about Charlie Kirk at length. My message was simple- this was a horrible tragedy, this is not a right-left political violence problem, and we’re being over force-fed “us vs. them” info. I went on to talk about how Kirk’s death and the hyper-partisan reactions were playing out locally, and how Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Kirk fit into the larger war on liberal comedy. For those of you who read me regularly, you know this is a lot of typing for me about Charlie Kirk, who had never once been mentioned on my blog before his death. I don’t talk about really any of the MAGA podcast/influencer folks- not Laura Loomer, Nick Fuentes, not even Tucker Carlson. It’s not so much that they are insignificant to me, I acknowledge they have large audiences and a good deal of influence with MAGA leaders all the way up to Donald Trump. I think talking about them is complicated and takes a lot of nuance that you can’t really have in every post. They are not elected officials or government officials who have direct powers to help or hurt us as a society or individuals. I don’t listen to or read any of them, other than when I come across their tweets and other posts, most of which I don’t agree with (occasionally I do, but even a broken clock is right twice a day). On the other hand, and definitely in part because they are not empowered government officials, I absolutely support their first amendment right to speak whatever they wish, free from any government censorship. On the other hand, if they lie or defame people, they should have to deal with their employers, funders, and civil lawsuits from individuals for their actions. I just kind of think their world is largely none of my business, I’m not one of their consumers.

So all the writing about Kirk does kind of prove a right-wing talking point- Kirk is larger in death than he ever was in life. I didn’t give a shit about him a month ago. Now I’m writing about him. But are my writing about the actual person Charlie Kirk, or whitewashed character that has only marginal ties to the actual person? David A. Graham of the Atlantic writes about this, and concludes that this is literally an affront to the actual person Charlie Kirk was. He writes beautifully about the irony in this mythological version of Charlie Kirk:

Kirk’s commitment to debate was inextricable from his political views; he wasn’t a value-neutral advocate for free speech. Kirk arose as a countercultural figure and deployed the First Amendment as a crucial tool for spreading his ideas: In an environment where they were not welcome, he pointed out that they were protected. Now that Kirk’s political allies hold power, however, many appear eager to suppress ideas they dislike. The Trump administration is vowing to use Kirk’s death as an excuse to crack down on dissent even as it lionizes him for defending it.

Kirk began his career planting Turning Point USA chapters on college campuses. As many conservatives were writing off academia, Kirk was evangelizing, creating a beachhead for right-wing views in traditionally liberal environments. Free speech was an important shield for him, because some of his ideas were bigoted, or articulated abrasively.

Some people now praising Kirk are conflating a commitment to argument with a devotion to civility. Kirk succeeded, in part, by eschewing civility in favor of conflict. He said, for example, that “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled—Alzheimer’s—corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.” (In the same radio show, he questioned whether Kamala Harris is Black.) He bused supporters to Washington on January 6, 2021; invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about the insurrection; and campaigned for pardons for the perpetrators.

Kirk railed against transgender and gay rights. He called George Floyd a “scumbag,” declared the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake,” and claimed that many influential Black figures were in their roles only because of affirmative action. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” he said. He said that if Donald Trump lost in 2024, hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants would be brought to Alabama, where they would “become your masters.” Comparisons to King are especially ironic because King, Kirk said, was “awful. He’s not a good person.”

I hold some inconvenient beliefs sometimes, but central to them is authenticity. Charlie Kirk said exactly what he said, and simply replaying or reprinting his words is not an attack on him, it is an honest rendering. I don’t agree with virtually any of Kirk’s beliefs about civil rights, Joe Biden, women voting, LGBTQIA rights, “DEI,” George Floyd, January 6th, Donald Trump, the 2020 Election, or really anything I can think of, besides his belief that he had a right to say it. I don’t think that people I deem as bad should be shot, ever. I don’t believe the government should try to cancel a television show, ever. Hell, I’ll just be honest and say I don’t think employers should have any absolute right to view your social media, or censor it, even as I acknowledge that isn’t covered by the First Amendment. I think people should have the ability to be their authentic selves, and in fact I think morally it is an imperative. Yes, if you are out in public (I at least on some level don’t consider social media public, particularly if you are protecting your posts from the entire public), saying something really crazy can get you fired. I typically do not think it should.

The truth of the matter is that even dangerously stupid and ignorant speech should be policed through the court of public opinion, and if your response is that this is failing in our current society, my response to that is this is who we actually, truly are. Trying to censor who we are because this “Trump era” makes you uncomfortable, or because you thought these kinds of opinions were supposed to be gone by 2025, is UnAmerican and morally reprehensible. If it bothers you that Charlie Kirk was amassing followers saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, or that he hated Barack Obama and Joe Biden, or that he thinks Kamala Harris is a moron, or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a bad man, or that women didn’t vote, or whatever it is you think- just understand that the people listening and agreeing with Kirk also agreed with what he was saying before he had a job saying it. These opinions and thoughts, they always existed in the world, and it’s not society’s formal job to silence people for saying them. You silence these opinions by not listening and not buying from the advertisers. Charlie Kirk should be able to speak to the audience that believes these things, just as Jimmy Kimmel should be allowed to do the same. There is a market of millions of people who agree with them. As long as that exists, they should exist, and we should make authentic judgments about how we feel about them. It’s pretty simple.

Of course, there is only one logical conclusion to this though- I didn’t like Charlie Kirk. I did not listen to him when he was alive, and I wouldn’t now. He told us how he feels about the role of women in our society, how he feels about Civil Rights in our society, that he thinks most Black Americans in the work place are of lower quality and that they are there because of DEI, that he thinks Donald Trump is a good man and Joe Biden is not, that LGBTQIA people are predators, and lots of other things. Charlie Kirk lived authentically and told us who he is. I did not approve of it. While I would not describe myself as a “Jasmine Crockett Stan,” but I think she’s right to question why any Democrats were voting to honor Kirk in the Congress. Do these Democrats agree with him on his beliefs? Did they agree when he was live? Or are they being inauthentic and cowardly, in hopes that this conversation will go away?

Charlie Kirk’s death has been weaponized to do things that some conservatives wanted to do anyway, like cancel Jimmy Kimmel. The conservatives doing it are being as dishonest as the Democrats in Congress voting to honor Kirk. This is all mythology. It’s creating a martyr of a person who was just a person. It’s gross and antithetical to being a health nation with a vibrant First Amendment. It’s creating a false narrative about who we actually are and who we actually want to be as a society.

Charlie Kirk, Kelly Keegan, the Northampton County GOP, and Free Speech

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

The Northampton County Republican Party and other conservative organizations plan to protest at the courthouse tonight. They are mad at County Councilwoman Kelly Keegan for highly insensitive remarks about Charlie Kirk, namely that he is a monster and that his wife and children are better off with him gone. They want things to stay peaceful at their rally, and I hope they do. One of the first political acts I took was going to a council meeting in protest of former Councilman Ron Angle making insensitive remarks about Black people and Jewish people on the radio. I can’t knock them for doing this.

I’ve always liked Kelly personally, but her statements serve absolutely no purpose. I’ve heard some people defend it with, “but I was right, he believed vile things,” and my response to that is so what? The only people excited by what you say, or agreeing with you, were people who already agree with you. You’re not informing anyone. You’re preaching to the faithful. You have a legal right to do so, but what does that do for anyone? The guy is dead either way, arguing about him is a bad look.

So now I’m sure people at this rally are going to call for her head on a stick. The truth is, absolutely nothing can or should be done now, unless Kelly wants to step back, and I doubt she will. The rest of the council has zero power to remove her. She’s not going to be impeached by the State House, that would be ridiculous. My guess is that the Easton School District cannot fire her from her job legally, so other than trying to make her miserable, they’re powerless. As a citizen, Keegan enjoys an absolute First Amendment protection to make statements like she did without legal repercussions. I’m glad she does too, I believe we are all free from government punishment for saying who we are. I believe Kelly will face zero repercussions for what she said, and I think she should face zero repercussions for what she said. Period. The next time angry citizens can do anything about her is the 2027 election, when her term ends. Let’s see if any of these angry keyboard warriors still care by then. I’m certainly not saying they should go away and give up. I’m saying they will.

Of course I have to take a shot at the Northampton County GOP though to end this, even though I’m totally cool with them rallying- the chairman and his rutabaga he nominated for Executive still are trying to run a campaign against the outgoing Executive, even when they protest someone else. What actions did the Executive take in regards to Keegan? There is no legal action for him. I realize they nominated a turnip who can’t put a sentence together, so maybe he not only doesn’t believe in free speech, but any speech. But really though, did they just throw in “Lamont McClure” out of instinct? The guy has nothing to do with this, but these weirdos just can’t let go the obsession. Also, this is the party that nominated Steve Lynch for Executive, are they really mad about social media ranting?

Everyone who goes, have fun at the circus.

Real Talk About Charlie Kirk

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

I waited a few days to write about Charlie Kirk for a number of reasons. The first thing is, I didn’t watch his show while he was alive, so I had no strong, informed opinion about him. I knew I didn’t agree with him much, but that was about it. Second, the rhetoric got so toxic between a lot of people last week that stupid things got said. Some on the left said stupid things, like the world is better off with him dead. Some on the right decided to call for Civil War, as though these keyboard warriors were suddenly revolutionaries. Frankly the entire internet debate was toxic. I didn’t need to write about it until putting some thought into it.

As I said, I just wasn’t really a fan. I also really didn’t think about him much, let alone hate him. The best thing I ever did for my mental health after 2020 was to stop watching 24/7 political news and punditry. Charlie Kirk had his views, I didn’t particularly love them, but he had a right to say them. He also had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, certainly free from fear of violence. American society failed to provide him that. Any time any person anywhere is killed by another person, that is a bad thing. It is a sad thing. Any time anyone, anywhere is killed over politics, that’s a bad thing, period, full stop. Yes, there are deaths in most revolutions, including our American Revolution, but most revolutions are not fought over differing opinions. The King of England was denying Americans their inalienable rights. Charlie Kirk was saying things you didn’t like on a podcast. Anyone actually involved in politics should be calling for a harsh punishment for the murderer, not trying to twist themselves in a knot to defend it. Political violence is simply always bad. A 33 year old father being shot in front of a live audience because the shooter didn’t like what he said is bad. It’s really that simple and that’s as far as it has to go. No further. I’m not going to make Charlie Kirk more in death to me than he was in life. I’m not going to change my mind about his message. I’m simply going to state unequivocally that Charlie Kirk deserved to be alive. I don’t really care what he said, that doesn’t change.

Now, a little reality for the American Right though- Paul Pelosi got beat with a hammer, over politics; Former Minnesota State House Speaker Melissa Hortman and State Senator John Hoffman, as well as their spouses and one of their dogs, were killed over politics; Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, and five others were killed in Tucson, over politics; Senior Pastor and State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney and eight churchgoers in Charleston were killed, over politics. I could actually go on here, but won’t. The point is that while Trump supporters and Republicans are blaming Democrats and the American left for Charlie Kirk’s shooting, conservatives produce plenty of insane murderers, if not a few more statistically, as well. Hate, violence, and crazy people are not confined to one political side or there other. The kind of nuthouse jackass who will take a gun and try to kill Donald Trump is not much different at all than the nuthouse jackass that drove up to Washington, D.C. to try and stop the fictional “Pizzagate” scandal (update- police killed this lunatic during a traffic stop down in North Carolina).

A little more reality for the American Right- we didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. This kid grew up in conservative, red-state Utah, with Trump loving parents who were very religious. Utah Valley University isn’t exactly in some liberal bastion. Reports are that this kid had a “transexual lover,” but even those reports are murky and don’t really give much context. Some reports say he lived with this person, but records contradict that. Regardless of who this kid loved, there is zero sign at all that he ever became a Democrat, or that he had any intention of helping Democrats through this insane act. The murderer is a scumbag and should pay, the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with you, regardless of what we think of Kirk. Trying to turn this into some sort of rallying cry to start a civil war is connecting dots that don’t exist.

And now for the left- you don’t have to say much. You are under no obligation to mourn Charlie Kirk. You don’t have to build him a monument. You don’t have to say much of anything at all. You also don’t have to say anything negative about the dead, as has unfortunately happened. There is no virtue in it, whether you’re factually “correct” or not. The people who are cheering negative comments about a dead person they didn’t like politically are not new converts drawn to your intellectually “correct” position, they are people who already agreed with you and voted like you. You are speaking in an echo chamber, and frankly it’s an echo chamber that has not faired well for Democrats. Obviously there are many who disagree with your position that the world is better off with Charlie Kirk dead. There are many, many more who simply roll their eyes at this kind of talk- at best for you, they don’t care, at worst they’re just sick and tired of anyone saying it and are put off by it. It does not matter if you are “right” or not here. The vast majority of the public doesn’t want to hear this kind of talk. They don’t think better of you because you “said it how it is” on Charlie Kirk. Really.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, what happened is awful. I wonder how many people will consider why we’re here though. We have 24/7 political cable news. There are “twitter personalities,” streamers, and other pundits out there putting content into the world. Most of them make their money by appealing to the most zealous of people that agree with them. As a result, they pump out talking points and rhetoric calling their opponents traitors, predators, criminals, and bums. Are there people who are deadbeat bums in our politics? Yes. Have we over used all of this inflammatory rhetoric at this point? Also yes. Constantly telling those who will listen that we are in crisis and the opposition is dangerous, well that eventually has consequences. There is always someone not nearly as stable as you reading the words, and they may decide to act. If you’re going to call someone a deadbeat, make sure it’s justified. Shootings like this are becoming more common, not less.