The refrain was predictable as soon as the bullet tore through Charlie Kirk’s flesh: “There is no justification for political violence.”
Well, OK. Obviously. There’s just one problem: there is, in fact, a clear justification for political violence if you accept the moral premises of how we’ve been discussing speech, harm and safety for the past decade or so (which I don’t). We’ve claimed, for some time, that our political adversaries pose an existential threat; that it’s noble to defend your tribe; that ideas make us unsafe, and that words can be violence. From that position – as opposed to a position of traditional liberalism – it’s tricky to oppose the logic of violence.
The assassination of one of America’s most articulate and influential conservative activists is the most dangerous flashpoint in a powder keg of American political violence.
Charlie Kirk and I swam in similar circles as podcast hosts and commentators, though we disagreed on everything: he, a Christian conservative; me, a secular leftie. Social-justice activists called him a “fascist”, which meant he was a normal Republican. He travelled from university to university with a sunny, contrarian cool, spreading ideas I find supremely offensive. He would’ve made my same-sex marriage illegal if given the chance, for a start.
But Kirk was doing politics the correct way: talking, debating, persuading. As his star rose, American campuses became increasingly dangerous for controversial speakers, who were silenced by mobs, protesters and rioters. Kirk was literally engaging in civil discourse when he was shut down.
We don’t know the assassin’s motives. But the suspect in custody was, at the very least, play-acting as an anti-fascist. His ammunition casing was engraved with a reference from Helldivers 2, an anti-fascist video game: “Hey fascist! CATCH!”
Everyone, understandably, wants to condemn this. But we’ve backed ourselves into a corner. If our adversaries inflict violence on us merely by expressing their ideas, on what basis are we prohibited from retaliating with actual violence?
A former Democratic governor candidate from Texas, Matthew Dowd, came closest to saying the quiet part out loud: “He [Charlie Kirk] has been one of the most divisive younger figures … who is constantly pushing this sort of hate speech aimed at certain groups … Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions.”
See? If only Kirk hadn’t had the wrong ideas, he wouldn’t need to have been eliminated.
