“you have to play dumb about the distinctions between persuasion and deception, reason and manipulation, to convince yourself that Kirk’s project was admirable.”
Thank you for saying this. The encomiums for a sophist who used slight of hand to advance vile bigotry have been nauseating and depressing.
Tangential, but my biggest takeaway from this farce has been to reflect on your When He Dies post, and the need for urgent preparation and coordinated strategy.
Thx and true, I went back and re-read it. But I seriously doubt the elected Dems have even thought about it. The media's response, except for the Guardian, has been pretty milquetoast regarding Kirk. Hateful people need to be recognized for being hateful, not fired for pointing it out.
I'm hard pressed to say what inspired Ezra, specifically, to lionize an obvious bad-faith actor like Kirk, but I did think the Pod Save guys were refreshingly honest in their assessment earlier that for them a lot of the personal impact comes from the fact that Kirk made a habit of going into public venues like that and being overtly political, and they do the same things (albeit with very different message content) and it's hard for them and a lot of other public and media figures not to self-identify with that and be fearful for their own safety in the future.
Pre-emptively and performatively rending your garments for someone like Kirk in order to avoid upsetting his more unhinged followers for fear the same violence might happen to you, does seem like a concession that the intimidation in fact works. Like with the general authoritarianism debate, it feels fair to say we're not sliding towards a world of political threats, we're already there.
beautifully said, Brian, thank you. I am collecting pieces like this and Josh Marshall's and JVL's bc I need clear thinking and statements to keep me from sinking into the morass you write about here. so grateful for the voices of clarity and sanity, like yours. and Matthew Dowd's, too. it was pathetic cowardice that led MSNBC to put him out so summarily, for what amounted to nothing. at the time he made the "offending" remarks, he didn't yet know Kirk had been shot, having been brought on air to talk about a different topic. anyway, we all need all the support we can get to stand tall and proud, to tell the truth.
Good article. For me, the real issue is how do Democrats convert Republicans' bad faith political framing into a win for us? We are teetering on the brink here of civil unrest. I don't care what a bunch of esoteric thought leaders put out for their own profit. Because right now, the public government symbols are telling apolitical and superficial everyday people that Kirk's assassination is on the magnitude of the Lincoln or Kennedy assassinations. And that is a massive political problem.
Trump immediately proclaimed the Left to be behind this attack by conflating the Left having the temerity to engage in partisan, political speech protected under the First Amendment with real world violence. That puts us in a pretty tight box - having to prove a negative. He did this immediately and vociferously because he knew the facts are probably going to show it was not an organized Leftist operation. However, he has most likely now successfully defined it as such. And because of how propaganda works, this falsehood is unlikely to be dislodged from public opinion.
As the author points out, Liberal thought leaders have reinforced Trump's propaganda. This suits their idiosyncratic goals in some way, no doubt. However, it is unlikely these thought leaders are going to get on board with the Democratic Party to fight Trump. I gave up on those guys a long time ago. Therefore, now is the time for Democratic political figures to do some sophisticated politics stuff if we are to have any hope whatsoever.
Democrats must first recognize Trump has put us into a game which cannot be won, except by not playing. So do not play Trump's game! Do not delve into the personality and ideology of Kirk. That causes the clueless like Klein to veer too far into praise for Kirk. Arguing and discussing Kirk's ideology reinforces Trump's premise that it was his ideology which got him killed, which then allows for the obscene implication the Left is responsible for the murder. This is the fact of how irrational the Right's mindset is. Res ipsa loquitor, one can never win an argument with someone who is irrational.
Political leadership with smart tactics that put Trump and the Republicans on their back foot is the only thing to do. Assertive demands that Republicans prove their BS up is the only way. Do not attempt to "prove them wrong" as Kirk said. Demand they prove their implied allegation of a political conspiracy are right.
So, as to the response to Kirk's death. It is pretty simple. Murder is wrong. It is a crime. Once the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, then he should be punished according to the law. If Trump and his minions think Democrats conspired to kill Kirk, then they should identify a real, live culprit and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The message is - Democrats did not kill Kirk. No further discussion.
Agree with your 'how do we convert' statement...so I will add...no matter what the murderer believes/supports the right is going to vilify and pin it on Dems/Left (heck...even when right wingers commit mass murder and they leave their own right wing manifesto they pin it on the left). And now it appears the murderer had anti-fascist inscriptions as part of his gun gear...so it's all going to be Anti-Fasicsts/The Left/Murderers/Anti Free Speech/Evil People, etc. I think the best approach is 1) Condemn Political Violence/It is a Tragedy/No One Should be Murdered for their Beliefs/Ballots Not Bullets/Free Speech...2) Use the Moment to Expose and Display Kirk's Political and Personal Positions as Anti American Values, Inhumane, Misguided (Yes...this will enrage the right...but his Out and Out Statements are Facts). It can be easy to state..."We very much Condemn his murder and all Political Violence and offer sympathy for those he left behind. We settle our differences at the Ballot Box and not with bullets...and this goes for both sides of the aisle. But given his prominence on the right, let's examine who he is and what his positions are (then list the numerous positions and how they embody the Right with strong counterpoints representing the foundation/platform of the Dems/Left). You can even tie his no gun regulation position and statement that some people will have to die with more guns and free speech/open carry disagreements as 'an unfortunate tradeoff' (this of course can be turned into a gun regulation campaign). Anyway...the left needs to separate but definitively state and draw the distinction between Condemnation/Tragedy and Extreme Right Wing Positions (heck...the right is even comparing Kirk to MLK...if this BS is not an opportunity to present their complete opposite positions then what is). The delicate line will be that his views drove the killing (which is probably true and which the right will jump on) but also positions on the left drove the right to kill them all the time...at that point you have the line in the sand between 2 opposing American Values positions which can be exposed. Also...the Dems need to have a spine in this area and not be punched down by the right since they have driven and caused the majority of Political Violence over the last few decades and continue now. Sure...it will become a tit for tat...but again...in the middle of that 'tit/tat' is the dividing line of values/political positions which can be exposed (the Dems can't just leave it as a tragedy and Condemnation because the right wins/achieves at the point...they need to find a way into the Political Position differences and expose them). I have not seen Talarico's response...but I think he is a key figure as a religious man and a complete opposite of practice/values from Kirk...which again represents my train of thought to Condemn and Expose (although I somehow think in the near term Talarico won't go for the full differing positions yet)...Kirk needs to be turned from martyr to someone who's death is a tragedy for him/family but one who represented the wrong positions for America...
100%. Very good. I like your emphasis on how the RW condemns the LW for what it says and does AND RW also condemns the LW for things it has not said or done. It is the old conundrum my Mother used to resolve in these situations by saying “I might as well be hung for being a sheep as a lamb”. Which means if your adversary has already decided you are guilty, you should go on with what you were going to do anyway, as you will be convicted anyway.
Which is not to say we should ever stoop to the level of violence or violent rhetoric!! But we darn sure can point out the objective fact that the RW rhetoric does not have a rational basis in reality. And one way that makes an impression on the impressionable, is to demand they make a positive case for whatever it is they are implying. Because if you look closely most of their vilification is insinuation and character assassination. There are never any objective facts which could be proven using verifiable evidence.
I like your mother's point (damn do/don't)...The Traitor in Chief/entire GOP regime unabashedly ran on and proudly and loudly continue to spout and enact blatant Fascist/Authoritarian Rhetoric and Policies...and they won/built an electoral majority in spite of it...it certainly gives the Dems who are blamed by the right for everything guilty or not the permission structure to speak loudly, proudly, and defiantly Against Regime Positions and For The Promise of America...that said...not everything the right says is a lie or bad position (albeit 90% are) which reminds me of something my mother said about relatives of ours that did bad things "they surround a sentence of truth with 10 sentences of lies"...which is all the right does (often all the sentences are lies)....a key to your point is the 'emotional' character vilification which is all they got...we do need to be fact based but also tap into emotional rhetoric that both vilifies them (for what they inflict upon the populace and against American Values) and uplifts (our vision in support of America)...we are in an emotion driven information environment and need to enact that component...what I am pissed about is that the Dems are being always reactive/not defiant, policy wonk driven, and big tent unfocused...that doesn't work anymore...they Need a 5-10 point platform now...and every response or proactive stance of theirs needs to support and fit into one or more of the points/buckets and reinforced nonstop across every distribution channel...Bottom Line...the majority of the country supports the vast majority of Dem Party positions...and even now several the GOP used to own are in retreat because of their extremism...time to put them to the fire whether you are a lamb or a sheep...Pritzker and Talarico show us both ends/styles of the defiant stand your ground Dem spectrum...and they both work...
Amen. And, what I don’t understand is why Democrats can’t seem to master the ability to reach emotions AND impart substantive information. You arae right. Priztker does it everytime he speaks, as does Talarico. I think I figured it out. They talk and think like real people, not mannequins.
I love what I heard Talarico say on a podcast the other day: “Business deserves a seat at the table, just not all the seats at the table”. Democrats at the national level have lost touch with the way real people operate.
BTW, notice what Talarico did there. He acknowledged the one true thing and rebutted all the lies surrounding it in Republican rhetoric.
Someone needs to make a video showing the kinds of vile, bigoted, anti-democracy things he advocated. Then send it to Ezra Klein and ask him if publicly advocating for authoritarian rule is “doing politics the right way” just because he used his words, not his fists.
Is there a wisdom tradition in the history of humanity that would valorize Kirk alive? I can't think of one. I understand that this only refocuses the question onto MAGA and the entirety of the electorate that put it into power, but Kirk was one of its most vicious, selfish, heinous, unrepentant and outspoken agents. He reaped what he sowed.
You can find testimony from the professors they listed. These folks received all kinds of hate mail, including death threats, and they had a lot less ability to screen those and pay for security measures than somebody who had millions to spend. As far as I know none of these professors has been assassinated... But that's just a matter of playing the odds. Some disturbed young man could come across the watchlist, and decide to "be a hero" by taking down one of these eeeevil woke professors.
It is a tragedy that Kirk was killed like this. But he spent a large part of his life making it more likely that _somebody_ would be killed like this. Ezra saying he was "practicing politics the right way" was _way_ off-base.
I'd add as well that, even to the extent Kirk engaged in speech and debate (rather than engaging in soliciting threats-by-anons against his enemies), his style of debate was frequently in-bad-faith, in much the way Sartre described the bad faith of anti-Semites. (To be clear, Kirk himself does not seem to have been an anti-Semite, and in fact the fact that he was not is why the Fuentes / Groyper clan of MAGAts hated him. But this bad-faith style of argumentation is common across a variety of extremist movements, particularly on the right.)
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
I like someone’s comment in Klein’s post before they closed it off - audience capture. And the same goes for Noah Smith although I do think the former is a little more thoughtful. The instinct for not irritating your readers is strong. Yglesias and Brian don’t have this problem.
But both Klein and Smith went too far in trying to tell us because he only used words that we should look past his faults and included a sprinkling of both sidesism? The Supreme Court takes rights away from us away every month. And do you think that just because they’re words I suddenly should morn Alito dropping dead tomorrow of a heart attack? From a humanistic perspective, there is sadness when one passes. But that doesn’t absolve you of all the things I disliked about you and it’s unreasonable to demand that reflection not be had.
This is an excellent, thoughtful piece that helps clarify my own thinking on this. But I want to quibble a bit with the characterization of Kirk as a "household name." I would be very surprised if Kirk's name recognition (before this week) exceeded 5%. I'm pretty terminally Online and I barely knew who he was. There's an element of this overwrought reaction to his death that reflects the willingness (eagerness?) of the media and the political establishment to be bullied by fascists. Very few people in the country knew who Kirk was, but everyone in politics and political media treated him like a titan. State flags being lowered to half-mast and op-eds in every major paper are the 2025 equivalent of admitting that Drudge rules their world.
Kirk’s assassination will be cudgel to further restrict speech, suppress electoral turnout and justify the need for a police state.
Both of these statements can be true.
Yet I do not expect the body politic nor the media to grapple with either with any true cognitive effort. We are past that point on the descent into authoritarianism.
The President of the United States ordered the extra-judicial murder of 11 individuals on craft at sea. The government used to have the “decency” to do that in the shadows, not proudly bray about it on their sophomoric social media outlets.
For all the talk of a shift in the Overton Window, I would call attention to the narrowing of the “Orwell Aperture”: the adoption of outright fascism and totalitarian rule is underway and reversal at the ballot box is becoming deeply challenging.
I can never make excuses for Kirk’s beliefs as I found them abhorrent. I can not support his methodology of targeting campuses and “teeing-off” on intellectually developing, yet still deeply emotional university students as a means of “informed debate”. I will never advocate for political violence as response to either.
I mourn for Kirk because he was a father and a husband.
I mourn for us all, because the nation as an aspirational project… not a nation of “is”, but a nation of “could be” is hastily being lost to the mists of time.
I read that CK's position on gun rights was that we as a society had to put up with a certain amount of gun violence in order to keep our Second Amendment rights? I agree with that, if it was his position.
But I do want to point out that a bolt action rifle is not a weapon that anyone realistically wants to ban. It's just a fact that some people are highly erratic in their thinking. Some of them have access to a bolt action rifle.
I was trying a homicide case once and I told the viictim's family that what happened was akin to a tree falling on someone. Wrong place/wrong time. The guy was gonna go off some day. The tree was gonna fall. Bad luck. Maybe some irony involved here. But, here's the thing. He had two young kids. That's so sad.
“you have to play dumb about the distinctions between persuasion and deception, reason and manipulation, to convince yourself that Kirk’s project was admirable.”
Thank you for saying this. The encomiums for a sophist who used slight of hand to advance vile bigotry have been nauseating and depressing.
Any chance you could get Ezra to talk this one through, o Politix or substack live?
Tangential, but my biggest takeaway from this farce has been to reflect on your When He Dies post, and the need for urgent preparation and coordinated strategy.
Thx and true, I went back and re-read it. But I seriously doubt the elected Dems have even thought about it. The media's response, except for the Guardian, has been pretty milquetoast regarding Kirk. Hateful people need to be recognized for being hateful, not fired for pointing it out.
I'm hard pressed to say what inspired Ezra, specifically, to lionize an obvious bad-faith actor like Kirk, but I did think the Pod Save guys were refreshingly honest in their assessment earlier that for them a lot of the personal impact comes from the fact that Kirk made a habit of going into public venues like that and being overtly political, and they do the same things (albeit with very different message content) and it's hard for them and a lot of other public and media figures not to self-identify with that and be fearful for their own safety in the future.
Pre-emptively and performatively rending your garments for someone like Kirk in order to avoid upsetting his more unhinged followers for fear the same violence might happen to you, does seem like a concession that the intimidation in fact works. Like with the general authoritarianism debate, it feels fair to say we're not sliding towards a world of political threats, we're already there.
The best thing to be said about the idiot savant Klein’s “thought piece” is that it got enough play to provoke some greater attention to his poison.
beautifully said, Brian, thank you. I am collecting pieces like this and Josh Marshall's and JVL's bc I need clear thinking and statements to keep me from sinking into the morass you write about here. so grateful for the voices of clarity and sanity, like yours. and Matthew Dowd's, too. it was pathetic cowardice that led MSNBC to put him out so summarily, for what amounted to nothing. at the time he made the "offending" remarks, he didn't yet know Kirk had been shot, having been brought on air to talk about a different topic. anyway, we all need all the support we can get to stand tall and proud, to tell the truth.
Brian, what would you think of the Democrats in Congress introducing the “Charlie Kirk Memorial Gun-Control Act”?
Good article. For me, the real issue is how do Democrats convert Republicans' bad faith political framing into a win for us? We are teetering on the brink here of civil unrest. I don't care what a bunch of esoteric thought leaders put out for their own profit. Because right now, the public government symbols are telling apolitical and superficial everyday people that Kirk's assassination is on the magnitude of the Lincoln or Kennedy assassinations. And that is a massive political problem.
Trump immediately proclaimed the Left to be behind this attack by conflating the Left having the temerity to engage in partisan, political speech protected under the First Amendment with real world violence. That puts us in a pretty tight box - having to prove a negative. He did this immediately and vociferously because he knew the facts are probably going to show it was not an organized Leftist operation. However, he has most likely now successfully defined it as such. And because of how propaganda works, this falsehood is unlikely to be dislodged from public opinion.
As the author points out, Liberal thought leaders have reinforced Trump's propaganda. This suits their idiosyncratic goals in some way, no doubt. However, it is unlikely these thought leaders are going to get on board with the Democratic Party to fight Trump. I gave up on those guys a long time ago. Therefore, now is the time for Democratic political figures to do some sophisticated politics stuff if we are to have any hope whatsoever.
Democrats must first recognize Trump has put us into a game which cannot be won, except by not playing. So do not play Trump's game! Do not delve into the personality and ideology of Kirk. That causes the clueless like Klein to veer too far into praise for Kirk. Arguing and discussing Kirk's ideology reinforces Trump's premise that it was his ideology which got him killed, which then allows for the obscene implication the Left is responsible for the murder. This is the fact of how irrational the Right's mindset is. Res ipsa loquitor, one can never win an argument with someone who is irrational.
Political leadership with smart tactics that put Trump and the Republicans on their back foot is the only thing to do. Assertive demands that Republicans prove their BS up is the only way. Do not attempt to "prove them wrong" as Kirk said. Demand they prove their implied allegation of a political conspiracy are right.
So, as to the response to Kirk's death. It is pretty simple. Murder is wrong. It is a crime. Once the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, then he should be punished according to the law. If Trump and his minions think Democrats conspired to kill Kirk, then they should identify a real, live culprit and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The message is - Democrats did not kill Kirk. No further discussion.
Agree with your 'how do we convert' statement...so I will add...no matter what the murderer believes/supports the right is going to vilify and pin it on Dems/Left (heck...even when right wingers commit mass murder and they leave their own right wing manifesto they pin it on the left). And now it appears the murderer had anti-fascist inscriptions as part of his gun gear...so it's all going to be Anti-Fasicsts/The Left/Murderers/Anti Free Speech/Evil People, etc. I think the best approach is 1) Condemn Political Violence/It is a Tragedy/No One Should be Murdered for their Beliefs/Ballots Not Bullets/Free Speech...2) Use the Moment to Expose and Display Kirk's Political and Personal Positions as Anti American Values, Inhumane, Misguided (Yes...this will enrage the right...but his Out and Out Statements are Facts). It can be easy to state..."We very much Condemn his murder and all Political Violence and offer sympathy for those he left behind. We settle our differences at the Ballot Box and not with bullets...and this goes for both sides of the aisle. But given his prominence on the right, let's examine who he is and what his positions are (then list the numerous positions and how they embody the Right with strong counterpoints representing the foundation/platform of the Dems/Left). You can even tie his no gun regulation position and statement that some people will have to die with more guns and free speech/open carry disagreements as 'an unfortunate tradeoff' (this of course can be turned into a gun regulation campaign). Anyway...the left needs to separate but definitively state and draw the distinction between Condemnation/Tragedy and Extreme Right Wing Positions (heck...the right is even comparing Kirk to MLK...if this BS is not an opportunity to present their complete opposite positions then what is). The delicate line will be that his views drove the killing (which is probably true and which the right will jump on) but also positions on the left drove the right to kill them all the time...at that point you have the line in the sand between 2 opposing American Values positions which can be exposed. Also...the Dems need to have a spine in this area and not be punched down by the right since they have driven and caused the majority of Political Violence over the last few decades and continue now. Sure...it will become a tit for tat...but again...in the middle of that 'tit/tat' is the dividing line of values/political positions which can be exposed (the Dems can't just leave it as a tragedy and Condemnation because the right wins/achieves at the point...they need to find a way into the Political Position differences and expose them). I have not seen Talarico's response...but I think he is a key figure as a religious man and a complete opposite of practice/values from Kirk...which again represents my train of thought to Condemn and Expose (although I somehow think in the near term Talarico won't go for the full differing positions yet)...Kirk needs to be turned from martyr to someone who's death is a tragedy for him/family but one who represented the wrong positions for America...
100%. Very good. I like your emphasis on how the RW condemns the LW for what it says and does AND RW also condemns the LW for things it has not said or done. It is the old conundrum my Mother used to resolve in these situations by saying “I might as well be hung for being a sheep as a lamb”. Which means if your adversary has already decided you are guilty, you should go on with what you were going to do anyway, as you will be convicted anyway.
Which is not to say we should ever stoop to the level of violence or violent rhetoric!! But we darn sure can point out the objective fact that the RW rhetoric does not have a rational basis in reality. And one way that makes an impression on the impressionable, is to demand they make a positive case for whatever it is they are implying. Because if you look closely most of their vilification is insinuation and character assassination. There are never any objective facts which could be proven using verifiable evidence.
I like your mother's point (damn do/don't)...The Traitor in Chief/entire GOP regime unabashedly ran on and proudly and loudly continue to spout and enact blatant Fascist/Authoritarian Rhetoric and Policies...and they won/built an electoral majority in spite of it...it certainly gives the Dems who are blamed by the right for everything guilty or not the permission structure to speak loudly, proudly, and defiantly Against Regime Positions and For The Promise of America...that said...not everything the right says is a lie or bad position (albeit 90% are) which reminds me of something my mother said about relatives of ours that did bad things "they surround a sentence of truth with 10 sentences of lies"...which is all the right does (often all the sentences are lies)....a key to your point is the 'emotional' character vilification which is all they got...we do need to be fact based but also tap into emotional rhetoric that both vilifies them (for what they inflict upon the populace and against American Values) and uplifts (our vision in support of America)...we are in an emotion driven information environment and need to enact that component...what I am pissed about is that the Dems are being always reactive/not defiant, policy wonk driven, and big tent unfocused...that doesn't work anymore...they Need a 5-10 point platform now...and every response or proactive stance of theirs needs to support and fit into one or more of the points/buckets and reinforced nonstop across every distribution channel...Bottom Line...the majority of the country supports the vast majority of Dem Party positions...and even now several the GOP used to own are in retreat because of their extremism...time to put them to the fire whether you are a lamb or a sheep...Pritzker and Talarico show us both ends/styles of the defiant stand your ground Dem spectrum...and they both work...
Amen. And, what I don’t understand is why Democrats can’t seem to master the ability to reach emotions AND impart substantive information. You arae right. Priztker does it everytime he speaks, as does Talarico. I think I figured it out. They talk and think like real people, not mannequins.
I love what I heard Talarico say on a podcast the other day: “Business deserves a seat at the table, just not all the seats at the table”. Democrats at the national level have lost touch with the way real people operate.
BTW, notice what Talarico did there. He acknowledged the one true thing and rebutted all the lies surrounding it in Republican rhetoric.
Amen Back...
Someone needs to make a video showing the kinds of vile, bigoted, anti-democracy things he advocated. Then send it to Ezra Klein and ask him if publicly advocating for authoritarian rule is “doing politics the right way” just because he used his words, not his fists.
Is there a wisdom tradition in the history of humanity that would valorize Kirk alive? I can't think of one. I understand that this only refocuses the question onto MAGA and the entirety of the electorate that put it into power, but Kirk was one of its most vicious, selfish, heinous, unrepentant and outspoken agents. He reaped what he sowed.
We should be clear that Turning Point USA promoted harassment and threats of those it perceived as political enemies.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/sep/17/turning-point-usa-professor-watchlist
You can find testimony from the professors they listed. These folks received all kinds of hate mail, including death threats, and they had a lot less ability to screen those and pay for security measures than somebody who had millions to spend. As far as I know none of these professors has been assassinated... But that's just a matter of playing the odds. Some disturbed young man could come across the watchlist, and decide to "be a hero" by taking down one of these eeeevil woke professors.
It is a tragedy that Kirk was killed like this. But he spent a large part of his life making it more likely that _somebody_ would be killed like this. Ezra saying he was "practicing politics the right way" was _way_ off-base.
I'd add as well that, even to the extent Kirk engaged in speech and debate (rather than engaging in soliciting threats-by-anons against his enemies), his style of debate was frequently in-bad-faith, in much the way Sartre described the bad faith of anti-Semites. (To be clear, Kirk himself does not seem to have been an anti-Semite, and in fact the fact that he was not is why the Fuentes / Groyper clan of MAGAts hated him. But this bad-faith style of argumentation is common across a variety of extremist movements, particularly on the right.)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
I like someone’s comment in Klein’s post before they closed it off - audience capture. And the same goes for Noah Smith although I do think the former is a little more thoughtful. The instinct for not irritating your readers is strong. Yglesias and Brian don’t have this problem.
But both Klein and Smith went too far in trying to tell us because he only used words that we should look past his faults and included a sprinkling of both sidesism? The Supreme Court takes rights away from us away every month. And do you think that just because they’re words I suddenly should morn Alito dropping dead tomorrow of a heart attack? From a humanistic perspective, there is sadness when one passes. But that doesn’t absolve you of all the things I disliked about you and it’s unreasonable to demand that reflection not be had.
This is an excellent, thoughtful piece that helps clarify my own thinking on this. But I want to quibble a bit with the characterization of Kirk as a "household name." I would be very surprised if Kirk's name recognition (before this week) exceeded 5%. I'm pretty terminally Online and I barely knew who he was. There's an element of this overwrought reaction to his death that reflects the willingness (eagerness?) of the media and the political establishment to be bullied by fascists. Very few people in the country knew who Kirk was, but everyone in politics and political media treated him like a titan. State flags being lowered to half-mast and op-eds in every major paper are the 2025 equivalent of admitting that Drudge rules their world.
Kirk’s assassination is a tragedy.
Kirk’s assassination will be cudgel to further restrict speech, suppress electoral turnout and justify the need for a police state.
Both of these statements can be true.
Yet I do not expect the body politic nor the media to grapple with either with any true cognitive effort. We are past that point on the descent into authoritarianism.
The President of the United States ordered the extra-judicial murder of 11 individuals on craft at sea. The government used to have the “decency” to do that in the shadows, not proudly bray about it on their sophomoric social media outlets.
For all the talk of a shift in the Overton Window, I would call attention to the narrowing of the “Orwell Aperture”: the adoption of outright fascism and totalitarian rule is underway and reversal at the ballot box is becoming deeply challenging.
I can never make excuses for Kirk’s beliefs as I found them abhorrent. I can not support his methodology of targeting campuses and “teeing-off” on intellectually developing, yet still deeply emotional university students as a means of “informed debate”. I will never advocate for political violence as response to either.
I mourn for Kirk because he was a father and a husband.
I mourn for us all, because the nation as an aspirational project… not a nation of “is”, but a nation of “could be” is hastily being lost to the mists of time.
I'm afraid that as much as I admire Beutler, this essay gets a D+
I read that CK's position on gun rights was that we as a society had to put up with a certain amount of gun violence in order to keep our Second Amendment rights? I agree with that, if it was his position.
But I do want to point out that a bolt action rifle is not a weapon that anyone realistically wants to ban. It's just a fact that some people are highly erratic in their thinking. Some of them have access to a bolt action rifle.
I was trying a homicide case once and I told the viictim's family that what happened was akin to a tree falling on someone. Wrong place/wrong time. The guy was gonna go off some day. The tree was gonna fall. Bad luck. Maybe some irony involved here. But, here's the thing. He had two young kids. That's so sad.
David Duke practiced politics the right way by running for office.