UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

The Charlie Kirk Example
Politicians who egg on political violence shouldn’t imagine they’re safe from it.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Sept. 11, 2025 11:55 am ET

The sickest aspect of Wednesday’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is that it was everything he always warned about, the very thing that motivated his many debates and catapulted him to fame. He talked so as to end political violence.

In a clip posted in April 2024, Kirk was asked by a (somewhat scornful) college student: “Why are you here?” Kirk responded: “OK, I’ve been asked that question a lot. First of all, the question should not even have to be asked. But when people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group. . . . What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement, where violence is not an option.”

It was with this goal that Kirk built his platform of touring the country, in particular universities, to engage in debate with critics. He was forthright; he didn’t mince words or soften his views to mollify an audience. He confronted touchy subjects, with statements that sent the PC police around the bend. But he didn’t duck questions and didn’t respond in anger, no matter how furious or provocative the questioner. He debated people’s positions—not their integrity. He talked to ensure we keep talking.

That example of civic debate was ended yesterday, when a craven gunman—someone willing neither to talk nor to listen—ended Kirk’s life while he spoke at Utah Valley University. Even before official news came of Kirk’s death, the press and social media began to roil with evidence of how badly we need more of Kirk’s message. On MSNBC, Democratic commentator Matthew Dowd explained: “And I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” Which exactly misses the point. Sticks and stones. Speech is the alternative to hateful action, not its excuse. (Mr. Dowd later apologized, and MSNBC fired him.)

Other comments on social media: “I swear to god if hitler got shot rn ppl would be saying ‘keep him in ur prayers’ and ‘political violence is never ok’. Like NO!” Another: “Thoughts and prayers to the bullet’s family.” The Hill reported on Wednesday evening that when GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert requested that someone lead the House in public prayer for Kirk and his family, “groans and a shout of ‘no’ ” broke out, provoking a shouting match between Republicans and Democrats.

Shouting, not talking. It’s notable that few if any of our elected representatives—the institutional embodiment of civic society—engage in anything resembling the outreach or engagement of Kirk. Washington politics is rarely anymore about ideas, education, persuasion or constructive disagreement. It’s a partisan blood sport, players vying for pole position in the race for nasty put-downs and righteous anger—in moments staged for viral sensation. Those lamenting Kirk’s death, celebrating his success in creating a young conservative “movement,” seem to miss that he did so by reaching out—not lashing out.

Those politicians are saying all the usual things now—decrying political violence, sending out prayers. Just as they did after the first assassination attempt against Donald Trump. And the second one. And the shooting of Steve Scalise. And of Gabby Giffords. And the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband. And the attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life. And the slaying of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband. And the murder of two staffers of the Israel Embassy. And the arson attacks against the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion and the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters.

The good behavior lasts a day or a week. This editorial page has frequently emphasized the importance of civil and societal guardrails. Those are built from the top. A nation that sees its leaders respectfully debate each other’s ideas, invite opposing views, and seek to persuade will rightly assume that to be the correct way to hash out political disagreements. A nation that sees its leaders vilify opponents, blame individuals (rather than their policies) for problems, and spew rage and tantrums will understandably assume that it’s acceptable to treat anyone who disagrees with them with contempt.

Worse, a nation that hears its leaders darkly warn on a daily basis that their political opponents are hell-bent on imposing tyranny is more liable to justify any action in response. And a media that has made a business model out of amplifying the showboats, mouth-offs and provocateurs—rather than giving attention to serious players—only eggs it all on.

It starts at the top. The politicians waiting around for their constituents to ask them to behave better will be waiting a long time; they’ve already created a raging nation. The only hope is that at some point those politicians begin to realize that unshackled political violence has them as its primary target. Soon, none will be safe. If for no other reason than self-preservation, perhaps then they will remember the example that was struck down in Utah on Wednesday. And turn today’s empty words into meaningful ones.


Link: Charlie Kirk