As someone who enjoys a little good-faith verbal sparring, Charlie Kirk’s assassination is not just the murder of a husband, father, and friend to those who knew him, but it seems like an assassination of free speech itself. It is perhaps why many of those who were only casually aware of his online presence are in mourning, and some even downright pissed.
Surely, Charlie Kirk could be a polarizing figure, but it was the strength of his convictions and the eloquence with which he conveyed them that attracted so many followers to his cause, and which made his detractors seethe. It is the moral unambiguity that has been so jettisoned by the Democratic Party in recent years. Agree or disagree, his levity and his seeming unflappability made him a formidable opponent in debate.
For a country that has spent most of the last decade trying to figure out what bathroom to enter or pronouns to use, Charlie Kirk’s un apologetic clarity and conviction was a breath of fresh air. It was one of the reasons for his incredible success with young people, who so often have been made to feel guilty about the color of their skin and the country of which they are citizens.
To some, a Christian who loves this country is a dangerous “Christian nationalist “, to others, he is merely a religious denizen. To some, the view that merit should trump identity is racist, to others it creates fairness in spite of race; to some, traditional marriage and defined gender roles is misogyny, to others it’s foundational to a strong family unit and the only scientifically proven way to ensure that children grow into conscientious adults; To some, words are violence, to others dialogue is necessary and good faith debate a bedrock principle of Western Civilization.
Whatever your viewpoint, Charlie Kirk’s assassination represents the brazen murder of the spirit of debate. The sane detractor’s who aren’t dancing around TikTok gleefully, recognize this watershed moment. Still, they often quantify their posts with, ‘I wasn’t a fan of his viewpoint, but, I don’t condone the act,’ or some such. This seems like just another mealy-mouthed position from the political left that so often misses the point. It falls short of condemnation of his assassination while also falling short of supporting his right to SAY the things he said. That is the reason we have a First Amendment. If we all say that puppies are cute, the First Amendment is moot.
Even if you believe this country is racist, filled with white privilege, and there are 37 different genders, you should still be in mourning. Charlie Kirk would have debated you with a smile, and said, “God Bless You” as you walked away in disgust. His greatest love, besides God and his family, was debating in a hostile setting, and he died doing what he loved. In some strange universe, we should take solace in this. Mostly, however, it just hurts. It is a devastating blow, no matter on what side of the poltical spectrum you dwell.
For those who wish to stifle debate, the truth remains that ideas don’t die with the death of one man. Using a bullet rather than debating his convictions makes Tyler Robinson both a murderer and a coward. But, the ramifications of his actions will undoubtedly cast a shadow far beyond his murder of one man, instilling fear of robust, honest, good-faith debate. To some, this seems the intention. We can only pray, or at the very least HOPE, that in eulogizing Charlie Kirk, we aren’t eulogizing the death of Free Speech itself.