RUTHFULLY YOURS

Polling reinforces the point. Even before this tragic event, opinion polls have shown younger voters shifting sharply away from the Democratic Party and toward Republican and Independent affiliation. They are also voting with their feet, leaving progressive “Blue” states by the millions for conservative “Red” ones. They are flocking South for college, too, having watched the suppression of alternative views in the Ivy League and beyond.

How did Charlie Kirk inspire his followers? Not with vitriol or name-calling, but with engagement. His points were strong and clear, but they were not personal attacks. He often made them on college campuses, like the one in Utah where he was murdered. Instead of making speeches and long harangues, Kirk took questions, often hostile ones. He responded to students with a rare combination of coherence and courtesy, avoiding ad hominem attacks.

That is where Kirk was killed, doing what he lived for: demonstrating the crucial importance of free speech in a democracy, especially one so deeply riven by partisan and ideological mistrust. His goal was to persuade his audience, not to demean or denigrate his questioners, not to distort their views so he could defeat “strawmen”. In that respect, he was closer to our ideal of a good teacher than many in universities and high schools, the ones who have turned literature classes into indoctrination sessions and repelled so many young people.

Kirk’s assassination comes a little over a year after Donald Trump was nearly killed at a political rally in Pennsylvania, followed by yet another close call from a potential assassin on Trump’s golf course in Florida. (That suspect is on trial now. The one in Pennsylvania was killed on the spot, with many questions still unanswered about his motives and the failure of the Secret Service to stop an armed gunman on a nearby rooftop with a clear line of sight to a presidential candidate.)

These assassination attempts come amid increasingly harsh partisan rhetoric. Long gone are the days when adversaries were called “the loyal opposition”. Today, the common term for those adversaries is “a fundamental threat to democracy”. In that chilling context, violence is often justified, either explicitly or implicitly, as somehow protecting democracy, not undermining it. Both sides claim the other does it. And both are right.

The other disturbing context is unchecked urban violence, with some criminals grasping for money and control of the streets, others seeking to make political points.

The violence by youth gangs and criminal cartels is apolitical – at least in intent – but their actions have political consequences since Left-wing mayors and police departments have done so little to stop them. Like-minded prosecutors downgrade the criminal charges or drop them entirely. Local judges do the same thing. Since so many of the gang members are young, minority males, the lax treatment is defended as “social justice”. Since the cartels are filled with illegal immigrants, the lax treatment is defended as protecting all immigrants. The predictable result is more crime and predation, with the worst impact in the poorest neighbourhoods.

There has also been more explicitly political violence in some big cities, with repeated attacks on US federal buildings led by organised gangs like Antifa. Those attacks ramped up after the death of George Floyd in 2020 and have continued ever since in a few cities. In some, notably Portland, Oregon, the police are nowhere to be found. They simply refuse to intervene or arrest the perpetrators.

The most predictable results are repeated violence, public revulsion at the disorder (especially on downtown streets, where homeless encampments are also a problem), and partisan efforts to capitalise on the divide, with progressives defending “social justice” and conservatives demanding “law and order”. Restoring public safety, they argue, is the first responsibility of any government, local or national.

Donald Trump has been especially effective at grasping the issue, highlighting both local crime and illegal immigration. These are lopsided “80-20” issues, and the president capitalises on them immediately and instinctively. His secret power is his ability to lock-in Democrats on the losing side. Trump knows the opposition party, now led by its Left-wing base, will lineup on the other side of every issue and punish moderates who beg to differ. Democrats can’t escape, lest they be seen as allying with Trump.

That’s the position the Left now also faces after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They loathed him, both for his views and his popularity. A few dared to say so publicly immediately after his killing (some even blaming Kirk for his own murder) and were met with a wave of criticism. They are still saying so on social media and in private conversations.

Celebrating the assassination of a political opponent is both morally repulsive and corrosive of democracy. It is important to call it out now and to do so regardless of one’s partisan affiliation. That’s the right thing ethically, and it’s the right thing for the future of our country. The grim alternative is a future of escalating counter-violence.

Charles Lipson is the Peter B Ritzma professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago. His latest book is ‘Free Speech 101: A Practical Guide for Students’. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com