Nia Videnova, Staff Writer
Content Warning: Discussion of extreme politics, deportation, and murder
Months have now passed since the brutal assassination of the founder of Turning Point, Charlie Kirk. No public instance of violence has generated such polarised reactions in recent memory. A fusion of both embittered mourning and pitiless celebration erupted seemingly over a “productive” young adult who had to leave his “perfect” wife and two kids because of the reckless whim of someone who simply had different political views. No public case of murder before has pushed sections of the left to abandon their moralistic values so radically that they would happily cheer the death of someone ostensibly innocent. No public display of fatal shooting has ever forced the extreme right in such an isolating corner that their zeal for freedom of speech would come back even stronger. Despite the initial furore of some individuals on TikTok, the death of Charlie Kirk in Utah Valley University, alas, did not guarantee political victory for the left. Instead, his assassination effectively set up the landscape for the popularisation of Trump’s policies, the further threat to minorities, and for political polarisation to thrive.
Charlie was a peculiar individual who — despite his persuasive and superficially logical arguments on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration, and his openness to debate anyone from the political spectrum — failed to convince me that he was not a questionable privileged person who lived in the bubble of American exceptionalism. The editing skills of his assistants on YouTube and the painstaking selection of unprepared and ill-informed opponents did at times make him appear as someone who deeply cared for his enemies but was a victim of constant threats, curses, and slanders. However, all that was needed to undermine this image was his embarrassing performance against Cambridge University students last May. Even his most devoted supporters could not deny the logical arguments of the left. On that day Charlie’s staunch claim that ‘college is a scam’ got sabotaged when a feminist undergraduate outperformed his debating skills proving that a university degree is not always a waste. It also re-affirmed that the left are not a bunch of TikTok scrollers who can’t give definition of a ‘woke’ and become aggressive every time their points are rebutted, but rational individuals who know what they are talking about and deserve the world they are striving for. Thus, Charlie’s cheeky plan of portraying the left as immature and college-scammed future fascists completely lost validity.
Yet did this mean that his assassin was justified to do what he did? Should have we normalised the TikTok shorts that marginalised, mocked, and marvelled at this atrocity? Did it signify that millions of Turning Point followers would have to anticipate a similar level of animosity or violence? Quite a few of the people I talked to expressed sympathy with his family and thought murder was too far. They claimed that no one deserved such an end even though the majority made it clear that they strongly disagreed with him politically. How could the reckless celebration of someone who had a family and tried to be a functional adult be normalised among the left? If Kirk’s death was just justifie on the grounds that he was ‘a horrible person’, would we then claim that he deserved the death penalty because of his controversial nature in the first place? And if he did, who else does? Who will get to decide in this increasingly polarising world where the government power is constantly alternating between left and right?
What is even more ominous is the fact that Charlie Kirk’s tragic end is not going to silence or humble the extreme right. The popular memory of his courage, evangelical character, and wasted potential future to become a US president day is already being shaped and painted by Trump, the Church, and other right-wing celebrities. Even individuals who are politically apathetic and know little about politics are more likely to be lured in by the ideas of someone with a sorrowful story as opposed to someone who makes fun of the misfortune of others. The rhetoric that Charlie ‘loved his enemies’ and Erika Kirk’s public statement in which she ‘forgave’ the assassin are furthermore likely to attract more sympathy towards him as ‘a martyr for the Christian faith’. Charlie’s practices have been compared to the traditions of Socrates and Christianity by the vice-president of the US. Charlie was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in front of tens of thousands of people. In other words, the Trump administration is ensuring that Kirk shall not be forgotten, and their use of language is likely to attract more people from the political centre. Ultimately, the celebration over his death by some individuals on the left was not only unreasonable but also counterproductive.
Trump’s actions are certainly not limited to peaceful grieving and commemoration. His rhetoric is polarising the world while his actions are hinting further plans for revenge. The US President has openly spoken about his hate towards Kirk’s opponents and posited that the language of the ‘radical left’ contributed to his death. The left has been consistently villainised and labelled as ‘lunatics’, ‘aliens’, or ‘evil’. Several people who have publicly criticised Kirk’s ideas and actions including university teachers and public officials have been fired in the US. Trump revoked the visas of six foreigners over their social media comments regarding the assassination of Kirk and compared them to ‘aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens’. This has happened in line with attempts to expel thousands of immigrants who have taken part in anti-Israel protests. I cannot adequately explore the absurdity of these actions in this article, but my point is that Trump is exploiting Kirk’s death and the response to it to advance his xenophobic, anti-immigration policies and silence his critics.
The celebration of Charlie Kirk’s assassination by some left-wingers has led to a counterattack from the extreme right that could escalate beyond Trump’s offensive rhetoric. Political polarisation is growing with every single social media quote or speech by a public figure. We have witnessed violence from both sides of the fence, but it is the right-wing led by Donald Trump that has capitalised on and turned them into threats towards minorities. In other words, the fact that Charlie Kirk is gone does not presuppose the extinction of extreme ideas. Thus, the posts expressing happiness and relief over Kirk’s death were not only a boost for the right, but were also of no avail. If the left genuinely wants to uphold its progress and advance its agenda, violent rhetoric will only reverse this.
Image Credit: Wilhelm Gunkel via Unsplash