More On Kirk’s Assassination

As of this writing a suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk has been apprehended and, indeed, it appears that his motivation was political. To the best of my ability to determine that suspect does not have a criminal history or a history of mental illness.

In reaction to Mr. Kirk’s murder the editors of the Washington Post declaim:

Too often, partisans appear eager to blame their opponents after any heinous attack — rather than straightforwardly condemning it. Studies suggest that strong public denunciations of violence from elected leaders help strengthen norms against it.

The overwhelming majority of prominent Democrats forcefully and promptly condemned the killing of Kirk, including New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who hosted Kirk on his podcast six months ago. Former president Barack Obama said that “this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.” Though Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) decried the violence, he couldn’t help himself from taking a dig at Trump. “I think the president’s rhetoric often foments it,” he said, a disgracefully ill-timed comment.

The more effective strategy for deterring violence is when political leaders criticize their own supporters for engaging in violent conduct or inflammatory speech. That would require a degree of honesty and integrity among our elected officials I don’t believe we have seen in decades.

If you need a case in point for why I disapprove of Illinois’s governor, Gov. Pritzker’s remarks quoted above are sufficient. Note that I am not alone. The majority of Illinoisans feel the same way.

Also in the Washington Post Megan McArdle’s column on political violence:

The people who do these things are not in any sense normal. The United States does not have the kind of organized political violence you see in countries tipping into civil war. What we have, at the moment, is too many people who have been deranged by life circumstances and mental illness and whose fractured brains have been further sickened in the fever swamp of online politics. The Second Amendment makes it easy for those people to get guns that do real-world damage.

If reports are correct, there is no “reasonable gun control” that could have stopped the attack on Kirk; the shooter appears to have used a bolt-action rifle, about the last category of weapon that would be banned. The only policy option is mouth control, attempting to tamp down the cultural forces that point sick people toward this most destructive and dangerous form of violence.

The most obvious place to start is with the legions of keyboard warriors, 101st Chairborne Division, who enjoy spinning online fantasies about hurting their political opponents — or glorifying those who do, like Luigi Mangione. Almost all those people are just talking, trying to signal their ideological purity or make themselves feel tougher and more courageous than their nondescript white-collar job would otherwise suggest. But they are giving ideas to those who want to do more than talk, including the idea that hurting other people can be a shortcut to fame. So stand down and knock it off. You are not a member of the online French Resistance; you are a soft and silly adolescent engaging in performative sociopathy to compensate for your real-world deficits.

Although I think her column is pretty good, there’s one thing that I think she’s missing. For those whose livelihoods depend an ever-expanding federal government any reductions in federal spending are, indeed, existential threats. That’s true, too, of those who imagine such a career for themselves.

Deterring political violence requires either a much higher level of surveillance than we’re willing to impose or pay for or a prevailing moral code that puts such violence beyond the pale. Realistically, there is no such prevailing moral code today. We have outgrown such primitive beliefs.

In the Wall Street Journal poli sci prof Ken Wallsten laments:

Ask Americans who’s to blame for the country’s recent outbreak of political violence and you’ll get mirror-image answers. The left points to the Whitmer kidnapping plot, the bludgeoning of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Minnesota Democrats Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman, and the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. The right points to the congressional baseball practice shooting, the murder of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, the two attempts on Donald Trump’s life, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Each side sees the other as uniquely dangerous, and reactions to every new act of politically motivated violence quickly devolve into partisan score keeping.

But the biggest divide in support for political violence isn’t ideological, it’s generational.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings show that more than one-third of students now say “using violence to stop a campus speech” can be acceptable. This should set off alarm bells in the nation’s classrooms, faculty lounges and dean’s offices.

It’s tempting to blame higher education. Over the past decade, campuses have seen a steady stream of disruptive protests targeting invited speakers, all while university leaders equivocate about the importance of political tolerance. At the same time, students are steeped in orientation materials, DEI trainings, lectures and syllabi that recast speech as violence and valorize resistance in the name of social justice. Many critics have concluded that colleges and universities are “teaching intolerance.”

But support for violence aimed at shutting down speech runs much deeper than college campuses. In a national survey I conducted last year, respondents were shown a list of eight politically divisive and potentially offensive statements (e.g., “All whites are racist oppressors,” “America got what it deserved on 9/11,” “January 6th was a peaceful protest”). They were then asked to select the statement they found most offensive from the list. Following this selection, respondents were asked whether “using violence to stop a speech” advocating the idea they selected as most offensive is “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” or “always” acceptable.

The good news is that nearly 80% of Americans reject efforts to silence speech they find personally offensive, with large majorities of Democrats (77%), independents (80%) and Republicans (82%) all saying violence is never acceptable.

The bad news is that the story changes dramatically when looking across generations. While 93% of baby boomers and 86% of Generation X say violence is never acceptable, only 71% of millennials and 58% of Generation Z do. And, there’s no meaningful difference between the attitudes of 18- to 26-year-olds who are and who aren’t enrolled in college.

or, shorter, fasten your seatbelts, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

On right-leaning sites I’ve been seeing a lot of complaints that President Barack Obama’s criticism of political violence is mealy-mouthed because he’s been calling President Trump a fascist. I have identified no such statements from President Obama.

Hillary Clinton is another story. She has frequently compared Trump to Hitler see here, here, and here. Are any further comments necessary to explain why I could not vote for her?

Also note the distinction between the “left” and “right” litanies of offenses with which Dr. Wallsten opens his op-ed. All of the offenses of “the left” listed by Dr. Wallsten are mortal attacks whose perpetrators appear to have been in their right minds and whose motives were explicitly political. The offenses of “the right” are either not mortal, the perpetrator was deranged, or the motives are not clearly political (or some combination).

We clearly have a problem and they both do it. It’s just “it” and “they” that are different. I don’t exculpate either Republicans or Democrats. There is, however, a matter of degree.