I confess that up until his assassination Charlie Kirk had barely penetrated my consciousness. There are enough elected officials with, to my mind, extremist right-wing views to keep me up at night without focusing on a campus agitator. I was not aware that he was a darling of Republican establishment figures and Christian evangelicals.
Perhaps that was a gap in my understanding of modern trends that should not have been there. The way he has been feted since his death I get the sense that many saw him as the future of the MAGA movement. Whether that’s true, or not, I cannot say.
What I do know is that the response to his assassination is problematic, to say the least. His supporters have used his death to urge repression of unidentified left-wing groups, even though there is no inkling that any prompted his shooting, and, in fact, the evidence says otherwise. In doing so they act as if all political violence comes from the left.
For example, JD Vance stated “[W]e have to make sure that the killer is brought to justice… And importantly, we have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years and, I believe, is part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin’s bullet.”
Stephen Miller said that the administration is going to “channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these [left-wing] terrorist networks… It is a vast domestic terror movement, and with God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.”
The President’s recent speech to the military top brass stating that they will have a role to defend the United States from the “enemy within”, citing several cities with Democratic led governments, confirms that this is not just idle rhetoric. Exactly how the military would discern between the left-leaning “terrorist networks” and those who peacefully oppose administration policies was left unsaid. I doubt if that was accidental.
Contrast these comments with the right-wing silence that followed the political assassination of Minnesota Democratic Representative Melssia Hortman and her husband. I could not find any remarks by either Vance or Miller in reaction to those murders. Vance may have sent out “thoughts and prayers”, but if so, they were not worthy of note. More importantly, there was no outpouring of outrage or a pledge to take action to stop such killings in the future. Had there been, we might have averted the Kirk tragedy.
Looking at the Kirk response, the Hortman silence appears to be because the killer was of the right, and the victims of the left. There was no recognition that the hyperbole coming from that side of the aisle helped inflame the atmosphere which led to those murders, let alone a commitment to tone down that rhetoric, or root our right-wing violence. Instead, on September 11, the Department of Justice removed from its website a report concluding that right-wing domestic terrorism was much more prevalent than left-wing or Muslim inspired terrorism, as if the Hortman killing was not a concern.
If you do not condemn all assassinations, you are in favor of assassination as a political tool, so long as those being killed don’t share your political views. If you pledge to wipe out only one perceived violent faction while leaving another in place, you are condoning violent attacks against any who may share some of that faction’s views. It’s that simple.
Yet, it’s not simple at all. Violence breeds violence. It cannot be contained. It cannot be pointed in only one direction. It cannot be employed to pick and choose its victims. Once violence is unleashed it grows exponentially. Aunty thought she could contain aggression within the Thunderdome, but that was unwarranted hubris.
Political violence, whether sanctioned or not, is unlikely to target those preaching or practicing violence. When no line is drawn between those who legally oppose administration policies and those who use force to overturn those policies, it is more likely the former that will be in the line of fire. There was nothing radical about Melissa Hortman. Yet, it is the Hortman’s of the world that will be killed.
I do not believe that Miller and Vance care, let alone the President. They know that some of the violence will be directed to their allies, such as with the recent ICE shooting in Texas. To some extent they even welcome it. In their cynicism, such violence will only give them more of a reason to broadly target their “enemies”.
If we as a country opt to ignore the truism that violence breeds violence, we will have its truth shoved down our throats. No one can say how this will play out, who will suffer or what the collateral damage will be. However, it will not be pretty. Violence never is. The ballet of John Wick is an entertaining fantasy that defies reality.
Those who condone violence think that it will enhance their power. They are wrong. As Hannah Arndt recognized, power arises when people act in concert. It is grounded in consent. Violence becomes a tool only when real power has broken down. It is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Either we take steps to reduce partisan violence across the board, or we will wallow in it. If we see violence as an acceptable political weapon, it will consume us. If anyone thinks that the violence can be surgical, they are living in Lala Land.
I wish I could see a way out. I don’t. The train is hurtling down the tracks, and no one is even considering application of the brakes. Those who think they are driving that train are fooling themselves. It will leave the rails, and no one can control the devastation it will leave in its wake. I know that’s grim, but it’s how I see it. I hope that I’m wrong.