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.)