Charlie Kirk, Misinformation, and the Perils of Political Violence

Americans can agree to disagree on a great many things, but our future depends on getting the political violence part right.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk hit me hard last week. I didn’t know Kirk. Nor did I watch his podcast. As far as political views, I probably disagreed with him as much as I agreed with him.

Nevertheless, watching someone’s life be snatched away before your eyes is a horrifying thing.

In an editorial published this morning on The Daily Economy, we explain the struggle for pluralism. I encourage subscribers of this newsletter to take the time to read it in its entirety, but I’ll offer an excerpt here.

Charlie Kirk deserves to be alive today, regardless of the ideas he held or shared. Likewise, his murderer — and the misguided multitudes who snickered, mocked, or winked at his death — deserve the constitutional protections Kirk enjoyed.

To deny either of these statements is to deny the natural rights stated in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution, and risks a return to a spiral of violence America has not seen in generations.

Kirk’s tragic death comes at a perilous time. Political tribalism is a toxic force, one that has destroyed nations. While there’s no single solution, even Kirk’s critics concede he was right that civilization depends on using words, not weapons, to resolve conflicts.

These last words are especially important. Once people reach a point of justifying or defending political violence, the bonds of civilization begin to break.

I think back to Elijah Lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaperman who was murdered by a pro-slavery mob in 1837. Lovejoy had faced repeated death threats over his anti-slavery writings, and on November 7, 1837, a mob tried to destroy his printing press. During the confrontation, Lovejoy was shot and killed.

I bring up the event not so much to draw a comparison between Lovejoy and Kirk, but because it made me wonder if Kirk’s murder would go down in history as a similar, catalytic event.

Lovejoy’s death is talked about in history courses because it was an event that signaled a period of violence in American history that eventually led to the Civil War.

I don’t believe we’re on the brink of a civil war—at least not like that which was fought 160 years ago—but we’re witnessing dark parallels to the pre-Civil War period. One of these parallels is a breakdown in decorum and discourse that led to spasms of political violence.

Lovejoy’s murder was one example. John Brown’s infamous 1859 attack on Harpers Ferry was another. In between, there were more outbreaks of political violence than one can easily count, and one of the most infamous was Rep. Preston Brooks’ assault on US Senator Charles Sumner.

Sumner, a leading abolitionist, had delivered a Senate speech laced with sexual innuendo that criticized a relative of Brooks. In retaliation, Brooks, a hot-tempered pro-slavery Congressman from South Carolina, attacked Sumner in his Senate office with a cane, leaving him bleeding and surrounded by broken cane pieces. Sumner required two years to recover.

Now, under ordinary circumstances, such an attack would have resulted in outrage if not immediate impeachment. How did anti-abolitionists respond?

“Southern sympathizers,” wrote historian Shelby Foote, “sent Brooks walking sticks by the dozen, recommending their use on other abolitionists.”

Months later, Brooks was re-elected in a landslide.

I bring up the anecdote because it reminds me of what we’re witnessing today. A young man was murdered in broad daylight while giving a talk on a campus. That is horrifying.

Equally disturbing is the number of people defending and celebrating the attack.

I could fill these pages with a thousand more examples, but what’s the point?

Let me be clear: This is not normal. It’s abhorrent and it’s dehumanizing.

I know many people online are more concerned about the fact that some are losing jobs over this rhetoric, framing it as a form of cancel culture—a phenomenon libertarians and conservatives often oppose. And they are not entirely wrong. I spent 20 minutes on Austin Peterson’s show this morning explaining why I don’t support making lists of people who say awful things about Charlie Kirk and then trying to get them fired, because that kind of behavior only worsens our poisonous politics.

That said, it’s neither surprising nor unreasonable that people are losing jobs over this rhetoric. Celebrating death, celebrating murder, is not just ghoulish—it’s a bright line for humanity. Endorsing the celebration of murder or political violence is a Rubicon we dare not cross.

A frightening number of people are trying to justify the action by saying Kirk had dangerous ideas, but this is nonsensical. People within their own families and workplaces often disagree deeply about important religious, political, and ideological ideas—but we don’t kill each other over them.

Many contend that digital media is making people crazy, and they might have a point. We refer to online sites as “echo chambers” for a reason. The politicized content seems to turn political opponents not just into monsters but boogeymen.

Kirk did not just from debate or polarizing politics, but one can’t help notice that many of his loudest critics seemed to be jousting with a phantom, a version of Kirk that didn’t exist.

Stephen King, for example, tweeted that maybe Kirk shouldn’t have condoned stoning gay people. He deleted the tweet and apologized when he found out Kirk never said anything like this.

Karen Attiah, the Global Opinions editor and a columnist for The Washington Post, was fired by the Post over comments she made about Kirk following his death. Among the things she wrote was this:

"Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously." - Charlie Kirk

The problem is, Kirk never actually said these words. Attiah inserted the words “black women.” Kirk never said these words himself. Instead, he said “You”; and the clip makes it clear he was talking about specific individuals—Joy Reid, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and others—whom he believed had benefited from DEI practices.

One can disagree with Kirk’s statement. That’s fine. But one can’t quote him as saying something he didn’t actually say, especially if you’re a journalist. When I pointed this out, one charming fellow on X offered this reply.

Here you are, babbling "well actually" bullshit. He said that, numerous times, when pushing White Replacement Theory. She is a COLUMNIST, you dumb fuck. He also called Kamala a "monkey". Your hero is burning in Hell, and when your time comes, you will join him ChristoFascist.

This person’s tweet didn’t really bother me. I’ve heard worse online. And that’s the point: it was online.

I spent time over the weekend watching videos of Charlie Kirk on campuses, where he tried to dialogue with others and persuade them to see his point of view. He was verbally abused over and over by people pelting him with sentiments like this in person. Yet he kept going into these hostile places. That took courage and discipline, and I admire that.

Unlike the Antebellum Era, Americans don’t have a geographical line that separates opposing factions; our divisions run through communities, workplaces, families, and our own neighborhoods. I don’t know if that is better or worse.

What I do know is this: Violence will tear us apart if we cannot agree that conflicts must be resolved by words. By reason. By persuasion. Not by weapons.

“Americans can agree to disagree on a great many things,” we write, “but our future depends on getting this part right.”