Why Empathy for Charlie Kirk is Misguided and Dangerous
To rid ourselves of the MAGA scourge, liberals must embrace a radical intolerance of the intolerant.
Let’s get this out of the way at the start: Charlie Kirk got what he deserved. The world is a better place now that he is gone.
Kirk was not just some “conservative activist” trying to have conversations with liberals. He was not a defender of free speech, a philosopher, or whatever else the right-wing propaganda machine is styling him as in its post-mortem attempt to martyrize him.
Charlie Kirk was a fascist zealot, a political operative for the Trump administration, and one of the most effective purveyors of far-right violence in the US. His organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), is a massive operation designed to mainline far-right ideology and disinformation straight to young people. He was the modern-day Baldur von Schirach (head of the Hitler Youth) and no different from extremist Muslim clerics who groom young people to become suicide bombers and ISIS fighters.
The only kindness Kirk should be afforded is to apply to his death what he preached in life. In life, Kirk famously said that allowing some gun deaths is acceptable for the right to own firearms:
He also said he did not believe in empathy. We should therefore treat his death as acceptable and afford it no human kindness.
And yet, many liberals fell all over themselves trying to do just that, condemning his death while the MSM did its best to lionize his legacy. Claims of “violence not having any place in our country” and that “all violence should be condemned” rang through social media and the airwaves. Democratic politicians mirrored the sentiments of their fascist counterparts in decrying “violence on both sides”, an inability to “disagree and still be civil,” and other nonsense. Some liberals even joined the far-right in condemning those who would dare express indignation at Kirk.
It was a true coming together moment…a bipartisan effort to carry water for the fascist cause.
In a vacuum, this reflexive genuflecting may seem well-intentioned, noble even. Violence in society is indeed troubling, and political violence especially so. Ideally, we would condemn any instance of violence that may occur.
But we live in the United States, where Republicans have made violence the biggest American export and its biggest self-created disease. Schools in this country offer a greater chance for children to receive a bullet rather than a proper education. Rather than a country where political violence is not permitted, it is so commonplace that we have become depressingly numb to it. Case in point: most of those grieving Kirk’s death paid no mind to the two children gunned down in Colorado that same day, let alone the deaths of Minnesota Democrat state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband several weeks before (indeed, while Democrats offered their kindest words for a fallen fascist this week, Republicans repeatedly ridiculed Hortman’s assassination when it happened).
The prevalence of so much violence in this country means that it is humanly impossible to care equally for every instance of its occurrence. The times people chose to express concern, therefore, say much about where they stand. It speaks volumes, for example, that many Democrats (politicians and supporters alike) chose to express grief over the death of a fascist, but deem the genocide of Palestinians as quotidian and seemingly acceptable. To paraphrase a quote attributed to Jose Stalin: “The death of millions of kids is a statistic. The death of one neo Nazi is a tragedy. "
Furthermore, at a time when ICE goon squads are openly kidnapping individuals in broad daylight and occupying entire cities, this selective concern from liberals is as dangerous as it is misguided. Rather than promoting peace or establishing a moral standard, it only serves to normalize fascists and make them more powerful.
The Fallacy of the “Holier than Thou” Left
For much of Trump’s political career, Democrats have styled themselves as the side of the political spectrum tasked with upholding moral standards. While Trump continuously offends, ridicules, threatens, and in many other ways belittles his opponents, Democrats sought to adopt a gracious and dignified approach in their manner and speech. If Trump were the devil, Democrats would be the saints.
This was encapsulated in former First Lady Michelle Obama’s rallying cry of “When we go low, they go high!!!” at an October 2016 rally. Trump trounced Democrats mere weeks later.
Democrats took their 2020 victory as a sign that this moralistic approach was popular. Biden continuously evoked a “battle for the soul of the nation” when contrasting himself with Trump. Democrats of all levels took up the call of political sainthood, styling themselves as the nice, caring party opposing the big, bad orange man. Voters in 2024 were not impressed.
There are many reasons why this approach is ineffective. One is that voters want fighters, not saints, to protect their bottom lines. It’s nice that Democrats didn’t want to say mean things against anyone, but that does nothing for the housing or affordability crises.
The other reason is, of course, the hypocrisy of it all. Obama and Biden both joined the chorus of “this violence has no place in our country“ following Kirk’s death, despite personally perpetrating the same or worse. Obama, for example, must have forgotten that he authorized the extrajudicial killing of the de facto Charlie Kirk of Al Qaeda when he approved the drone strike on radical cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama’s use of drone warfare killed thousands of people during his presidency, many of whom were innocent people. There is no better example than the aforementioned strike on al-Awlaki, which also killed his al-Awlaki’s son, a 16-year-old American boy. At least Kirk’s shooter can boast a lack of collateral damage.
As for Biden, what is there to say? The notion that a man can claim any type of moral superiority while openly supporting and funding some of the worst atrocities of the 21st century in Gaza was always asinine.
Liberals Need to Stop Demanding “Perfect Victimhood”
One of the most insidious aspects of an oppressive system happens when society collectively expects victims of oppression, past and present, to be noble, docile, and submissive in their oppression. A failure to be a “perfect victim” renders one undeserving of liberation.
We see this when Black liberation is discussed in the U.S. Slaves like Nat Turner and Toussaint Louverture were extremists, the bad slaves ruining it for the rest of the bunch. Uncle Tom and his cabin deserved emancipation, not the ones who dared take liberty for themselves.
We needn’t even go into the past to see this dynamic; we see it currently in Gaza as well. The Hamas attack on October 7th is framed as an unacceptable act of violence against innocent people. That it was the result of decades of Israeli apartheid and oppression is so anathema to the liberal psyche that some Democrats want to make it illegal to even utter those very words.
Liberals demanding empathy in the wake of Kirk’s death are, willingly or not, upholding this “perfect victim” trope rather than focusing on fighting the fascists in power. In doing so, they effectively support Trump’s authoritarianism by ostracizing those who are righteously angry at people like Kirk, while at the same time doing nothing to capitalize on a significant political moment. They are, in effect, simultaneously the crabs in the bucket and the frogs in the hot water.
“We cannot lose our humanity!” some will say. I would argue that not holding space for anger is more inhuman than wishing a fascist dead.
“But we cannot make Kirk a martyr!” others will cry. This concern is overblown. Unfortunately, we are so desensitized by the frequent occurrences of political violence that Kirk will be an afterthought for most in a news cycle or two.
“But this will give Trump and MAGA a reason to commit further violence!” The reality is that they weren’t struggling to find one. Trump and the MAGA gang have already blamed Kirk’s death on the left, despite Kirk’s killer coming from a Republican household and steeping himself in far-right content. Worrying about displeasing Trump and his goons is as cowardly as it is pointless.
Embracing an Intolerance of the Intolerant
Writing during the throes of World War II, philosopher Karl Popper offered the best explanation of the dangers of liberals’ empathy towards Kirk. To uphold a tolerant society, Popper posited, we must suppress intolerant actors like Kirk, or suffer the destruction of said society. To hear him tell it:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
To be clear, Kirk was never interested in the “rational argument” Popper mentions. His so-called “debates” on college campuses were not efforts for common ground, but rather an effort to undermine liberal talking points through baseless ranting and overedited responses. Kirk may well have inspired a whole genre of supposed “debate” content designed to create further division and platform extremists.
Furthermore, TPUSA is not a benign think tank but a militant network for the recruitment of fascist operatives used to undermine the American education system. In addition to spreading fascist propaganda, TPUSA chapters track professors and school programs that promote inclusion and tolerance for the purpose of destroying them through threats and intimidation.
Liberals must therefore do away with the nonsensical self-policing and go on the offensive. Rather than worrying about being seen as morally superior, they must begin a concerted effort to ostracize and marginalize fascist factions like TPUSA and their followers. They must begin to treat them and their followers as the terrorists that they are. Luckily, they have the truth on their side. Studies show that the far-right commits about six times more violence in the U.S. than left-wing actors. Most far-right terrorists are groomed via organizations like Kirk’s and swear allegiance directly to Trump himself, making it easier to make those connections.
Senator Elizabeth Warren made a good start:
Rhetoric is just the start, however. The left should also borrow a page from the far right and ostracize far-right sympathizers in any way possible. Individuals should be named, shamed, and, when possible, fired for their intolerance. Anyone who has espoused fascist ideologies should be banned from acquiring a gun, visiting schools, and restricted from as many public places as possible.
The MAGA regime will not go away via nice words and moral posturing. Only through radical intolerance of the intolerant can we hope to rid ourselves of scum like Kirk and Trump.