Last week, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, co-founder of Turning Point USA, and ally of President Trump was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
Charlie had a huge following of supporters who strongly agreed with his conservative values and views. He also had a huge following of detractors who strongly disagreed with him.
This column will not focus on defending or challenging his views on the issues of the day.
In today’s deeply divided world, an effort to change strongly held views is an exercise in futility.
Instead, I will focus on how he conducted himself in expressing and discussing his views.
In watching videos of Charlie’s events with large crowds of mostly young people, college students and high school students I was always impressed with how different those engagements were in contrast to much of the political debates in our society.
Charlie presented his strongly held views without being aggressive or condescending. He always listened intently and respectfully to those who strongly disagreed with his views. He regularly took questions, answered questions. and listened to criticism of his views.
He encouraged and relished direct engagement with supporters and critics alike.
At the opening of his events, he often told attendees — if you disagree with my views, come to the front of the line so we can share and talk about our respective positions.
He was the epitome of a person who could disagree without being disagreeable.
Despite his civil approach in delivering, defending, and discussing his beliefs, he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.
Immediately following his death and since then, there have been countless people saying or writing they condone, support, justify, or are actually celebrating Kirk’s murder.
They have a constitutional right to do that. They do not have human decency.
They do not understand or commit to the belief that every human life has value deserving protection and respect.
That is true even when that human expresses his or her beliefs that his or her opponents may strongly disagree with or even abhor without being murdered.
Mao Zedong, longtime leader of China once said, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”
Currently in America, politics has become war with bloodshed.
This lack of civil discourse and respect for differing opinions is not exclusive to any religious affiliation or political party.
In just the past few months, two children were murdered, and seventeen people were injured when a shooter opened fire during worship in a Catholic school in Minnesota. The shooter’s manifesto described his hatred of Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, and President Trump.
Also in Minnesota, a pro-abortion rights Democratic – Farm- Labor party State Representative was murdered along with her husband. A fellow pro-abortion rights Democratic -Farm – Labor Party State Senator, and his wife were shot by the same individual, but both survived the attempted murder. The murderer is an anti-abortion advocate.
Murders of children elected public officials, and political activists such as Charlie Kirk are more than tragedies.
They are a further indication of a warp speed acceleration in our society on the decline of civil discourse and decency, and the desensitization of the loss of human life.
Next year will mark 250 years of America’s experiences with free speech and civil discourse on and a wide range of divisive issues.
I am increasingly uncertain free speech and civil discourse in America will ever return.
In the book, Poorer Richard’s America, there is an ominous suggestion that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Organic Evolution: Natural Selection, applies not only to nature, but also to nations.
One example is Great Britain:
At one time, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world.
It was often said, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
After the end of World War Two, Great Britain declined rapidly as a great world power.
Some suggest that America is on a path do the same and will do so sooner rather than later.
That outcome is not inevitable.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a19th century French diplomat, political scientist, and social critic suggested that “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”
It is not too late for Americans, individually and collectively, to strive to be good with a renewed commitment to freedom of speech, civil discourse, and respect for all people, all ideas, and all beliefs.
David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.
Excellent and important piece. Thank you David Reel.
“”he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.”
He was branded this way because he was all of those things. Well, maybe not all. Thanks to the one way arrow of time, it was impossible for him to be a Nazi or Hitler. But I bet if he had a time machine, he’d eagerly go back to Germany in the 1930s and stay there. Right at home.
He’s been recorded making misogynist comments, racist comments,, transphobic and homophile comments as well as fascist statements about murdering. political opponents. All of that is in the public record. That he is being martyred by Trump and all Republicans pretty tells you what the Party stands for..
Ah… you still believe President Trump called neo nazis and white supremists very fine people.
All those comments were recorded on TV as Trump made them. Anyone, anywhere, with a computer can access them. Trump also said that in one day he can end the Ukrainian war. Do you still believe the war is still going on in light of Trump’s promise to end it even before he was sworn in?
I encourage you to go and watch the press conference from 2017. President Trump quite clearly says “I am not talking about the Neo nazi’s and the white supremacies because they should be condemned totally”. He was saying there were very fine people on both sides of the argument about keeping or tearing down the statue. The media and democrats edited the clip to make it look like he said the opposite. You can’t see it because cognitive dissonance will kick in and you will only be able to say things like ‘a threat to our democracy’. Intelligent people have come to terms with the fact that arrogant uncurious democrats will never figure it out. I don’t know why I keep trying. The debunking of it played a big part in President Trump being reelected in 2024. Being stuck in the hitlarian doom bubble of non reality must be so confusing.
here’s the full transcript https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
I respectfully suggest you read the observations below of Bill Maher who describes himself as an old-school liberal and is not aligned with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
“They’re the people [the far left] who don’t want to talk, Charlie Kirk was always willing to engage – I talked to him here. Say what you want about right-wingers, but they’ll talk to you. The left has more of an I won’t talk to you. You’re deplorable. I can’t break bread with you. ” Charlie Kirk and I certainly don’t agree on much politically. But he sat here. He’s a human being. He’s not a monster.”
Who the heck is Bill Maher to speak for anyone???
He lost credibility years ago.
And gee, I had no idea one had to be considered
“left” to find Kirk’s comments despicable. So, it
does not matter what one says, only that they will listen to “opposing views”? How liberal of you😉.
I have always felt racist and misogynist speech beyond the pale and meant to be shunned. And to
have our flag at half staff is a gut punch to decency.
But of course Trump has moved on, having ignited his
gullible base.
Mr Davis,
PLease quote some of the recordings you have mentioned.
Mr Davis,
Would you please provide quotes from the recordings you mentioned.
Thank you
A fish, America, heals from the head, president. I’ll wait.
Well said. Thank you Sir
In your article, you said, “Charlie presented his strongly held views without being aggressive or condescending. He always listened intently and respectfully to those who strongly disagreed with his views. He regularly took questions, answered questions. and listened to criticism of his views.
He encouraged and relished direct engagement with supporters and critics alike.”
Kirk’s murder was terrible and I denounce violence of any kind, and while I disagreed with nearly everything the man said or stood for, his type of give and take, listening and dialogue is something we need more of – at every level of society and government.
ANDY HARRIS isn’t even brave enough to appear in the same room as his many constituents who aren’t his direct supporters or donors. Andy, how about letting me set up a small group meeting? You can come to us or we’ll come to any of your office locations. We are your constituents, your job is to represent us too. How do you know, truly know, what we need and think without having a conversation? And wouldn’t you like the opportunity to enlighten us on your positions and votes? This could be a grand opporutnity.
I appreciate the following quote from a Black man:
The death of Charlie Kirk really reminds you how much America protects whiteness, this man spent his career saying hateful things about black people, women, gays etc. Now in his death, anyone talking bad about him or even critiquing him is being punished.
Numerous people have been fired for speaking out about him, videos and post are being taken down. America is truly one of the most racist countries in the world.
To think Kirk has been honored with flags half staffed (I understand he was forced to do so for President Jimmy Carter) and
Trump plans on giving him our nation’s highest honor.
Repulsive.
Have you ever watched or listened to Charlie Kirk? An entire show… not just a clip taken out of context??
You mean when he said the Civil Rights Act was bad for blacks, Segregation was better?
That is just one, the majority of his remarks were inflammatory and sexist.
I found his white male patriarchy laughable and bait for those who need a scapegoat.
You didn’t answer the question….
Well said David Reel. But unfortunately you are right. Although they may read your words they will only hear the hate in their hearts.
Kirk was in NY six weeks ago. After leaving, he tweeted he didn’t feel safe there because there were many people who didn’t belong there. It was very perceptive.
Utah is a much safer place because it’s “red”. That certainly proved wrong. “Red” states are the Wild West for gun enthusiast, as we saw.
So, NYC with its varied populace is unsafe because there are people “who do not belong there”. You know, people, people of color.
And you accuse others having “hate” in their hearts? Projection at its finest.
Do you people?really believe what you were saying? Think about it.
Maybe Kirk could be sociable and open to discussion with those who had differing opinions, but as is documented that doesn’t whitewash the hate filled rants he would engage in. More importantly what Trump has said about opponents and immigrants is far worse. And he is now using the power of the President and the judicial system to go after anyone who followed the law and worked to indict him after January 6. His attacks on anyone and any liberal institution now because a lone psychologically unwell man shot a right wing influencer shows Trump’s hypocritical reaction to political violence. Did he call for such a crack down after the killing of a Minnesota legislator. Of course not.
Mr. Reel. I note that your commentary about the tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s murder you extolled about how he conducted himself and characterized it as “civil”. You wrote: Despite his civil approach in delivering, defending, and discussing his beliefs, he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.
He was branded as racist, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and fascist among other things because that is precisely what he espoused, often shouting angrily in his speechifying.
Replacement theory has been propagated by American Nazis per Charlottesville. Kirk said: “They want to replace white, Anglo-Saxon Christian protestants with with Mexicans, Nicaraguans, El Salvadoreans….”. Who are “They”? Who “wants” to replace whites? What is meant by “replace” anyway? Why was Kirk so afraid of people of color “replacing” whites?
Is it civilized to claim that “Women don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously”? He specifically mentioned Michelle Obama, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Joy Reid and Sheila Jackson-Lee don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously……”You have to go ‘steal’ a white person’s spot” he said. Is that civilized? How did Kirk document that ignorant lie? As a one-semester college dropout, Kirk’s jealousy comes howling out here.
Kirk said: When blacks in America did not have the same rights they have today, they were less murderous. There was less break-ins, Why is that? Crime is certainly up since the 1940’s but so white crime. And white collar crime robs billions from average black and white Americans.
Kirk said: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free. The problem with uttering hate speech, evil speech, ugly speech as Kirk did, was the 2nd Amendment, which he himself allowed was risky.
Sadly, his rhetoric caused an apparent violent reaction, which ended in his murder. As a far-right Republican fellow traveler for Donald Trump, Kirk is receiving heroic status among his true believers.
I’m surprised you don’t consider Kirk’s commentaries to be “disagreeable”. Are racism, misogyny and fascism “decent”? You seem to believe Kirk showed every human life has value deserving protection and respect.
I’m my view, your failure to acknowledge the explosive nature of Charlie Kirk’s offensive attacks suggests tacit agreement. Yes, this murder was horrendous and his killer should face justice. Yet the murders by of many others, especially children, should also have been taken with at least the same degree of mortification as Charley Kirk.
Your commentary is deeply moving, and I appreciate how you chose to focus not on politics, but on humanity and civility in a time when both feel increasingly fragile.
The tragic loss of Charlie Kirk and the polarized reactions that followed point to something much larger than one man or one ideology. As you so clearly laid out, the erosion of civil discourse and the rise of violence in place of dialogue is not only heartbreaking, but profoundly dangerous for the future of our democracy.
What struck me most in your piece is the reminder that disagreement does not have to mean disdain. You highlighted something rare in today’s public square: the ability to hold strong convictions while still respecting the dignity of others. That is a model worth preserving — not only for politics, but for every realm of human interaction.
I also appreciate your weaving in of history from Mao to de Tocqueville because it reminds us that the challenges we face are not unprecedented, but neither are they inevitable. Nations rise and fall, but as you point out, the true test of America has always been whether we can pair freedom with goodness, and free speech with responsibility.
At the heart of this tragedy, and of your reflections, is a call back to human decency a call to recognize that life is sacred, that words have weight, and that democracy only survives when we are willing to hear one another without resorting to hate or harm.
Thank you for writing this. It is a sober, intelligent, and necessary reminder at a time when so many feel tempted to choose outrage over dialogue, and division over decency.