On September 10th, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political commentator, was violently shot and killed while exercising one of the most American rights: freely speaking. While this is undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, the true question that needs to be asked is what motivated the shooter to commit such a heinous act of violence?
The mass media have rightfully condemned this act of political violence. Simply stating that political violence in all forms is wrong, however, is clearly not enough; it does not address the root cause of the assassination. The shooter in this case was clearly inspired by left-wing ideologies, regardless of the legacy media’s attempts to minimize. This is demonstrated in the testimony of family members of the shooter, in which they stated that he increasingly engaged with more leftist ideas.
Even more noteworthy are the alleged inscription on the bullet: “Hey fascist! Catch!” and the text exchanges with the shooter’s roommate in which the shooter allegedly wrote, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
There is an unfortunate reality that has emerged on the radical left that it is acceptable to silence speech if it is deemed “hateful” or that it is OK in some sense to attempt to assassinate President Trump because he is a “fascist.”
It is not true that those who called Kirk’s words hateful or called Trump a fascist are individually responsible for either of those violent events. However, when you continuously push a radical rhetoric that anyone who disagrees with your side is deemed dangerous and hateful, you create a permission structure for such violent events.
Even in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death, media commentators such as MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd — who was rightfully terminated — made comments that support such a permission structure or a semi-excuse for what happened to Kirk. Dowd was on the air the same day as the assassination talking about how “hateful words” lead to “hateful actions.” This rhetoric shows an enormous problem in our society: It has become a mainstream view on the left that hateful speech can be used to justify shooting a bullet into the neck of a husband and father whose only crime was political disagreement.
The leftist framework for the justification of violence was also seen on another date in recent American history: December 4th, 2024. This was the day that Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Health Care, was brutally killed in the streets of New York City. It wasn’t the fact that he was killed in broad daylight that was so shocking. The country’s reaction, especially among the youth, was the most appalling: 81% of America’s youth had a negative view of Brian Thompson after his murder, and 48% of college students said his murder was somewhat justified.
Ponder those numbers.
Roughly half of America’s college students — those who will be future doctors, lawyers, judges, and political leaders — believe the murder of an innocent health care CEO was somewhat justified. These statistics expose a cancer that is growing within America: the view that saying or believing the “wrong things” outweighs an innocent human’s right to life. This Machiavellian worldview that the ends justify the means is exactly the type of permission structure that leads one to believe it is OK to murder someone with whom you disagree on health care policy or to silence a “hateful” political commentator.
When mainstream media outlets and left-wing politicians begin stating that words are violence and that some views in health care will lead to the deaths of many people, you create a structure in which those who commit political violence believe that they are acting out of self-defense.
This societal problem won’t be solved unless there is more of what Charlie Kirk stood for: civil discourse and debate. It needs to become socially acceptable again to debate controversial issues and cross the aisle to engage in discussions with the other side. Fascism and Hitlerian ideas need to regain their true ghastly definitions again, and it should no longer be societally acceptable to call any mainstream Republican or conservative “Hitler” or a “fascist” over a policy dispute. This rhetoric minimizes the evil that is true Hitlerism and fascism while hindering the ability for citizens to debate the most consequential issues facing our country.
Many people — especially those on college campuses — now have to contend with the fear that there might be people who want them dead if they speak on and believe the same opinions that Kirk did.
It is also noteworthy, however, that many young people are experiencing an awakening, during which many have become more passionate about their beliefs and are ready to defend conservative values. This has already been shown through the 54,000 chapter requests for Charlie Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA.
Time will certainly tell whether the aftermath of Kirk’s murder will lead to a newfound abundance of civil discourse or whether it will lead to further growth of the permission structure for violence. Let us pray and hope that it is the former.
The opinions expressed within this piece represent the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Independent.
Well done, Gabriella.