Cycle of political assassinations unsustainable
'We must love one another or die'
It should go without saying that political violence is part of the fabric of America. It’s one of our darkest vices. For all our pieties about freedom and civil debate, violence based on policy differences has been a way of life here for centuries: from the Revolutionary War, to the near-genocide of the American Indian, to the Civil War, to the civil rights movement to the attempted assassinations of politicians too numerous to mention, too often we have failed to settle our differences peacefully.
My first exposure to such inhumanity was on Nov. 22, 1963, when I was a first-grader in Dallas. Our school let us out immediately after President Kennedy’s death was announced at 1:30 p.m., even though Lee Oswald had not yet been captured and had just gunned down a Dallas police officer only a mile and a half from our school in Oak Cliff. My dad’s uncle was a shift supervisor for the Dallas Police Department and called us with regular updates. Two days later, our family watched in horror as Oswald himself was shot and killed in the basement of the downtown Dallas police station on live TV. On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, I wrote about it for CTNewsJunkie.
The murder yesterday of conservative commentator and organizer Charlie Kirk near Provo, Utah, is perhaps the latest reminder that America has yet to outgrow its propensity for political violence, though I should caution that, as of 5 p.m. today, we do not yet know the shooter’s motives. It’s possible — though unlikely — the gunman had a personal grievance against Kirk unrelated to the politics of either man. But that hasn’t stopped the finger pointing on social media. “They” is the word many conservatives are using online to describe Kirk’s killer, even though at this writing no suspect has even been arrested.
Though I had my differences with him on policy (e.g. LGBTQ rights, MLK/civil rights, the 2020 election, gun control, vaccine requirements, Jan. 6, abortion rights), I do respect Kirk’s ability to form a grassroots organization and develop a large and devoted following. And more than anything, I respected his right to speak without being shot at, no matter how wrongheaded he may be.
It is worth noting that after resolving to get to the bottom of the Jeffrey Epstein matter — and demanding the release of the documents related to the case — Kirk recently announced (presumably under pressure) that he was done with the matter:
I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration.
Really? “Trust” a man who, evidence strongly suggests, was for years involved sexually with underage girls and is now trying mightily to cover it up? That pretty much tells you all you need to know about Kirk. He talks tough but if his standing with Trump is on the line, he will turn his tail and flee. Ironically, on this issue anyway, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert have more integrity. Editor’s note: Hell hath officially frozen over; I gave all three of the worst members of Congress a pat on the back.
Longtime Democratic strategist Paul Begala said it best recently on CNN when he quoted the great poet W.H. Auden’s September 1, 1939, so titled after the first day of World War II when Germany invaded Poland:
We must love one another or die.
Suggested additional reading:
Why Charlie Kirk Mattered So Much to the Right -Will Sommer, The Bulwark
Three Months, Two Political Killings: The Poison in Our Politics -A Mighty Girl (Thanks Bridget!)
I did not "follow" Charlie Kirk. I would see him occasionally on TV, where I did not agree with all his views. But--I do feel like society has been robbed of a person who was not afraid to mix it up. I was intrigued by the concept of his Prove Me Wrong sessions, and watched a few. He was quick-thinking, funny, smart, and ambitious. I love the fact that he was happily married, with 2 children--nothing says confidence in the future like being willing to have a family.
I see they have someone in custody--that didn't take long, despite the NYT heaping ridicule on Kash Patel for how he mishandled everything. Give me a break. The NYT never has anything good to say about anyone, unless it's their resident moron, Paul Friedman.
This guy, Tyler Robinson, will have adoring apologists, just as Luigi Mangione does. I think THAT is the issue here. Assassination is viewed as a legitimate solution to political discourse. Killing someone --silencing a voice--is acceptable to some. When did that become the "go to" move for people who disagree with each other? It isn't a question of us "loving one another", so much as simple tolerance for one another.
It doesn't help when anyone on the political right is labeled as "fascist", or Hitler. " Fascist" is meaningless. I watched a Charlie Kirk Prove me Wrong exchange in which a young student accused Charlie of being a "Fascist". CK asked a very simple question: "What is a fascist? How do I fit the definition?" After 20 seconds of frustrating stumbling and bumbling and running his fingers through his hair, the guy just gave up. He couldn't answer the question. What a fool. No wonder the left was afraid of Charlie.