By now most of you must have read of the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk yesterday.
The best remarks about the horrible murder I’ve encountered were written by Isaac Saul, editor-in-chief of Tangle:
When I first heard the news, I didn’t believe it. Then I saw the video. There was Kirk, speaking before an audience, microphone in hand, when a crack splits through the air. His body goes stiff, his neck explodes with blood, his head falls back. Pure chaos ensues.
I didn’t think it was real. Or I thought it was real, but I couldn’t process it — of course it’s real, it’s right there — but I wanted so badly for it not to be. I could only watch it once. My stomach turned.
I’m going to spend one sentence directly sharing my views about Charlie Kirk’s political positions: I vehemently disagreed with him on some things, and I thought he offered a great deal of needed clarity, often with courage, on others.
Kirk made a living off of debating people. Most people know him through the viral, 30-second clips of him hitting someone with a closing slam dunk to “win” an argument. Yes, Kirk often framed his content as “owning” the left — but his goal was persuasion. Yes, he often went to college campuses and goaded (then ran circles around) sophomore lit majors on topics he was far more knowledgeable about — but if you watched his events in long form, you’d see something different, something far more empathetic.
He was trying to persuade not just the person he was talking to but everyone watching, and then welcome them into his political movement. He would allow people to frame an argument, and then he’d ask follow-ups; he sought clarity on what they were saying, he made sure he understood them, and then he made his case. I remember the first time I watched a full video of one of his events. Having only been familiar with the 30-second dunking videos, I was seriously surprised by the tone — how often he said “that’s fair” or “that’s a good point” or “I understand why you think that” before he went into action — often in ways I found deeply alluring.
Kirk was especially keen to compel young people, and young liberals, to the conservative cause. And he didn’t just operate where he had advantages; he’d debate political rivals, sitting down with people like Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. He chose a righteous path of talking to people from across the aisle. In his own words, he did what he did because “when people stop talking, that’s when you get violence, that’s when civil war happens.”
He did not use violence; he used words.
Saying much other than that is grossly premature.
He should not have been killed and we should hope there are no more (apparently) politically based murders like his or those of the Minnesota legislators. That said, I dont see the need to see the guy as some saint. He was a political activist who sometimes engaged in good faith debate and sometimes engaged in hyperbole and vilification of those with whom he disagreed. The fact that he sometimes engaged in good faith debate puts him ahead of most influencers and activists but I dont think that makes him a saint.
Steve
I fail to see the problem. Logically, it is incumbent on the morally superior to eliminate threats such as worse than Hitler or the Brownshirts. I often wonder why Dr. Taylor has not addressed this evil in a more substantive way.
(BTW – I am serious. It is the logical endstate.)
TB- Trump claims all lefties are scum. Wouldn’t that also apply? Conservatives often refer to liberals as communists and as we know communists killed more people than fascists/Hitler. Wouldn’t that also apply? More seriously, I think the point Dr Taylor would make is that we should not elect people who engage in fascist rhetoric and tactics, not kill them.
Steve
Steve once again proves what he is.
I think that proclaiming the motives of Charlie Kirk’s murderer is very premature. The same is true of the man who killed the Minnesota lawmakers and the attempted assassin of Donald Trump. We don’t really know why they did it.
Those are all political actions in the sense that politicians were the targets but we don’t know for sure whether the motives were political. That’s true whether you’re a news reader, a social media influencer, or the president of the United States.
Since Dr. Taylor has also said that the original fascists were mistaken in their definition of fascism, I presume his operative definition of fascism is “something I don’t like”. That’s not literally what he has said but it’s the upshot. For the umpteenth time: I don’t think that Donald Trump or his supporters are fascists. I think they’re dolts.
@steve
If President Trump or any other person states that liberals, gays, progressives, Soviets etc. will commit as bad or worse atrocities than Stalin, they should round-up all these potential evil doers. It is only logical.
I have never made any such claims. I have stated and will continue to state that Biden is a senile, racist, pedophile. I have also stated that the country will survive his, Trump’s, or any other president’s term.
If I understand correctly, you do not believe that Trump is as bad or worse than Hitler or Stalin. You do not believe that we are living in an authoritarian state, and the possibility of it becoming one is zero.
To be morally consistent, anyone who spouts such nonsense should include a prominent disclaimer. NOTE: I do not object to the rhetoric. My concern is the moral bankruptcy of the one spouting such nonsense.
I’m very torn by Dave’s comments. Trained and by personality drawn to facts, we should wait. But as a person who made a living not by waiting, but by using intuition, judgment and experience plus the fact set available, because I had to, am compelled to make some initial observations. (And at the end of the day you look at the batting average)
We might find that this was an apolitical nut. I don’t believe it. This was a political, and professional (or at least well executed) hit on a person viewed as dangerous to the left.
The response of nutcases ( bluesky or tic tok) academia, and media (MSNBC or CNN etc) identify them as horrible people.
The “Both sides” argument fails miserably. Biden and Harris were not targeted for assassination. What left commentator has been killed? Who are routinely accused in media and blogs of being fascists, Hitler, authoritarian. Who are routinely posited as “killable”. Left, or right? Go to media sites. There is your answer.
Speaking of Taylor. I’ve been banned there. But asked, on my way out, “what kind of blog do you really want?” The formula is that Taylor writes “right under our noses” or Trump is stupid, or Trump is a fascist etc. it’s irrational. Clownish, actually. But then come in the commenters: yeah! Yeah! He’s horrible. Stupid. A pig. I still go to peruse comments just to take a temperature. But wow. Talk about living rent free in a head. I guess I know what kind of blog they want….
Dave
With all due respect. I’m just not buying the “no political motivation” excuse.
Why Kirk? An influential person in an important Demo, whether issue by issue or as a demographic. He was a targeted assassination. IMHO you underestimate evil.
I didn’t say “no political motivation”. I said that we don’t know whether there was a political motivation. And we don’t.
There are other possible motivations. Notoriety. He was a “soft target”. Or the guy could just have been a nut. It has only been a day. I suspect we’ll know more in a day or so.
Dave
No, we don’t. Yes, I’m speculating. The alternatives are obvious. I bet I’m right on political motive. And I’ll bet that heaven and earth will be moved in media to avoid the obvious.
I wasn’t assassinated. You weren’t assassinated. Billy Joe Macallister wasn’t assassinated. Charlie Kirk was, a danger to the left.
TB- No, I dont think Trump is anywhere near as bad as Hitler, but then I have never heard Taylor express anything remotely like that either. What he says, from the POV of someone who studies political science is that Trump sometimes engages in rhetoric and actions consistent with what fascists have used. So choose anyone who has extensively studied fascism. I have listed below What Eco regards as the key factors in fascism. Trump meets a lot of but not all of the criteria. Regardless, not every fascist was a Hitler (nor every communist a Stalin).
I cant figure out why, other than to make some point I dont quite get, maybe just to attack Taylor for some reason, why suggesting Trump has certain political characteristics means Taylor should advocate killing Trump.
On the issue of authoritarian I think we are heading that direction. I think we have discovered that our constitution is deeply flawed. There are actually few limits we can place on the power of POTUS if he chooses to seize power. Much of the perceived limits were actually norms. To be clear, we have been sliding that way for a while with every POTUS abusing more power, Trump just greatly accelerated the process.
BTW, while I agree with Dave that we should wait it is most likely politically motivated.
The cult of tradition.
The cult of action for its own sake.
The cult of disagreement.
The rejection of modernism.
The obsession with a plot.
The cult of xenophobia.
The cult of the elite.
The cult of the hero.
The cult of nature.
The cult of the strong man.
The cult of machismo.
The cult of the people.
The cult of the chosen people.
The cult of the nation.
Steve
@steve
So, you, Dr. Taylor, MSNBC, Colbert, etc. do not believe the nonsense you spout. Either Trump Is a threat to democracy, the Constitution, or anything else, or he is not. You pick, and then, act accordingly.
Please, define the terms you listed. I would like to know what each one means, according to you. I do not want to misinterpret you.
(The reason I mentioned Dr. Taylor is because I monitor OTB. I do not follow any nonsense, and I do not pay attention to pro-Trump nonsense. Also, I do not pay attention to any other nonsense such as when Obama was president.)
First off, fair winds and following seas to Mr Kirk and his family. Htis family will have a difficult time ahead.
Secondly, while some are determined to let their inner selves show, what matters now is the arrest and trial of the shooter.
Oh BS! You provide a false dichotomy. I think Trump takes us further down the road but I dont know how much further he goes for if he goes much further. And democracy is not an either/or proposition. It can be weakened without being destroyed. I think our democracy is worse if POTUS can unilaterally decide things are emergencies, can unilaterally decide when to do away with due process and can assume powers that rightfully belong to Congress. That doesnt mean we fail.
That said, since he has accelerated the process what happens if the next POTUS accelerates things at the same rate in the next presidency?
I will defer defining each term. Not interested in writing War and Peace here. It’s easy to look up if you are actually interested though much of it is pretty obvious.
Steve
@steve
For a proper debate, terms must be defined. Your list seems to include mostly the invectives you hurl at Trump and the MAGA crowd, and the list seems to be intended to infer a dictator. If you refuse to define your terms, I will assume that is correct.
Of course, you do not believe any of that. You acknowledge that Trump is only continuing a trend that began long before, and that trend was furthered by Saint Obama, also.
You have admitted that democracy is NOT in danger, and there is no constitutional crisis. The only problem is that Trump won the election, and you disagree with his policies.
Simply, you are intellectually dishonest and philosophically inconsistent.
TastyBits: Logically, it is incumbent on the morally superior to eliminate threats such as worse than Hitler or the Brownshirts.
Brutus is not remembered for saving the Roman Republic, but for plunging the final fatal dagger into it.
TastyBits: Either Trump Is a threat to democracy, the Constitution, or anything else, or he is not. You pick, and then, act accordingly.
Using extralegal means to defend the law is self-defeating.
Dave Schuler: Since Dr. Taylor has also said that the original fascists were mistaken in their definition of fascism, I presume his operative definition of fascism is “something I don’t like”.
You might want to support that claim. A link should suffice.
steve: I think our democracy is worse if POTUS can unilaterally decide things …
Unilateral powers are always destabilizing. Every power and every official must be subject to accountability.
steve: I think we have discovered that our constitution is deeply flawed.
Turns out the United States has been on the honor system all along. Good luck with that.
It’s like Charlie said,
They couldn’t prove him wrong.
TB- Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no? You keep setting up false choices. You are smarter than that so I suspect you are just fuc*ing around. It’s a better or worse democracy, not democracy or no democracy.
I have specifically said that it has been an ongoing process and been getting worse. For example Biden took extreme liberties trying to force through the student loan thing. Obama abused his powers and so did Bush. Trump just took it from a slowly increasing issue and accelerated it. Yes, it’s easier to point out what he is doing since he has engaged in so many abuses of power and as they are recent easier to remember.
I take it from this you agree with Trump assuming the power he has assumed and by extension the power the office of POTUS has been assuming all along. Disappointing.
Steve
@Zachriel
I have told you this before. If you wish to engage me you will need to write multi-sentence paragraphs, and you will need to write at least two. Furthermore, they cannot be written by ChatAI. You might notice that you are the only commenter that refuses to provide any actual substance to the conversation.
Take note of my reply to @steve and his to me. I may disagree with him, but his reply is substantive, and therefore, he deserves the same. You should note that he includes things that he will need to defend. That is how adult discourse works.
BYW – To fully understand a person’s writing, you need more than one link, and you need to include his/her sources. ChatAI, Wikipedia, etc. do not count. That is the reason people include bibliographies.
@steve
First, you need to define your terms. Again, your list looks like you are describing a dictator, and that dictator and his followers have had most of those invectives hurled at them.
As I stated, I am serious about this. I do not understand the distinction between thought and action. For example, I proclaimed that we should bring back the draft. I realized that it would apply to me as well, and at 27, fat and out of shape, I enlisted.
As to a better or worse democracy, very few frame it that way. That includes the right and the left.
You admit democracy is not in the balance, but then, you imply that Trump is the problem. The founding fathers thought the same thing, and they took action. You do not believe the nonsense you spout.
Being from New Orleans, nothing politicians do surprises me. I have been surprised by the extent of lawfare for political gain. Lawfare itself is not new, but it has mostly been used against people without the means to fight back. This would include criminals rightly and wrongly accused.
Obama claimed he was going to “fundamentally change the country.” Then, the right claimed he did “fundamentally change the country.” Obamacare was going to destroy healthcare as we know it. Obama pulling out of Iraq was going to throw the world into chaos. Biden was mostly out-to-lunch.
At the time, I thought it was nonsense, and I was right. It will turn out I was right about Trump, and you will forget the next Democrat president doing the same thing. Much the same was said about Bush, and now, he is a hero. Likewise, it will turn out that Obama was not the Antichrist.
There are a lot of things Trump does that I do not like. I would much prefer that the system work as it was designed. Included in the design was a mechanism to rectify flaws in it. My concern with Trump exactly what yours really is: He is continuing a trend that has been accelerating for some time.
I am tired of worrying. Nobody thinks for themself – “there is an app for that.” First, it was Wikipedia, and now, it is ChatAI. In life and physics, things tend towards disorder. Things eventually break down, but eventually, they are rebuilt, usually better.
Shorter, shit or get off the pot.
(NOTE: Occasionally, I start to think the end is near, but I force myself back to reality.)
TastyBits: {snip}
You are under no obligation to defend your position. Readers will make of it what they will. Our words are our own.
Concerning a citation for Brutus, you might try Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Strahan & Cadell 1776:
TastyBits: You admit democracy is not in the balance, but then, you imply that Trump is the problem. The founding fathers thought the same thing, and they took action. You do not believe the nonsense you spout.
The Founders measured any action against the Prudence Clause. See the Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress 1776:
Your problem, as steve has repeatedly pointed out, is to insist on a strict dichotomy, when that rarely applies to human affairs. All of this was clear from our previous comment, which you waved off.
I have lived in Chicago for well over a half century. Need I say more?
“Healthcare as we know it” was already on life support. The Affordable Care Act went some way to putting the final nails in the coffin. Nowadays 3/4s of all physicians work for hospitals or other corporate entities. The hospitals and corporations are potentializing the living daylights out of patients.
When you smooth out the discontinuity during the pandemic U. S. life expectancy has been flat for 15 years. During that period real U. S. healthcare spending has nearly doubled. I’m sure that steve will rationalize that as Baby Boomers. I, on the other hand, think that if there were no Medicare and instead we had a federally-funded program that covered all child healthcare birth to 16 pediatricians would be the highest paid of all specialties. In other words any program will be potentialized without realizing much in the way of benefits.
@Zachriel
It has been a long time, but I have read Gibbon’s work, including the footnotes. You will need to expound upon how you feel he is relevant. Again, I demand multi-sentence paragraphs.
over the years, @steve has contributed substantive comments, and therefore, I have a reasonable idea of his reasoning.
I assume by “we”, you mean the royal we, and you are not including @steve. @steve is a big boy, and he does not need your input to defend himself. I am not interested in engaging children who think their imaginary friends are real.
TastyBits: You will need to expound upon how you feel he is relevant.
Gibbon isn’t relevant. Brutus is.
Your claim, as we understand it, is that if someone believes there is a threat to democracy, then they should take radical violent action against the threat. Is that not your position?
@Zachriel
One’s actions and beliefs should be aligned. If they are not, one or the other must change. I do not agree with premise of the BLM movement, but if you really believe the police are looking for black men to murder, you do not march in the street and wave banners. In that case, you are part of the problem.
My sister once told me that the reason I rub people the wrong way is because I actually believe the things I say. I guess she was right.
Grow up. Again, your imaginary friends are not real.
@Dave Schuler
I will leave the particulars to you and @steve, but from my perspective, not much has changed. I doubt the trend in healthcare consolidation is any different from any other industry.
TastyBits: if you really believe the police are looking for black men to murder, you do not march in the street and wave banners.
That’s what we thought you said. Our original answer stands.
@Zachriel
The actions and belief of MLK, Gandhi, Jesus, Mother Teresa, and Bishop TuTu were aligned.
I agree. The difference is that as professionals physicians are protected from consequential damages. If physicians are no longer professionals, perhaps that should be changed.
@TastyBits:
I think that the actions and beliefs of Jesus of Nazareth, MLK, Mother Teresa, and Bishop Tutu were more closely aligned with each other than with Gandhi. IMO his beliefs were only superficially aligned with theirs.
@Dave Schuler
Fair point, but he was better than me.