American society continues a headlong march toward a performative nadir where nothing occurs that’s so terrible that it can’t be made worse. Tragic as the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was, it prompted an even more dispiriting response: excessive praise and punishment among the commentariat; elevation of a documented shit-stirring influencer to martyr status; further crankiness and middle fingers between right and left.
Facts and truth took hits in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, as you knew they would, because reporting takes time, and ideology abhors a vacuum. Kirk supporters wanted to push a narrative of who and what the shooter must represent before he was apprehended or even identified. Once it became clear that the alleged killer didn’t quite fit the desired profile, it required more work and massaging, which continues apace.
In the days since Kirk’s death, he’s been hailed by conservatives as a patriot, a visionary, a champion of free speech, a good Christian, a role model. President Trump called him “a great guy from top to bottom” and referred to him as “even Legendary.” Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted an illustration of Kirk being hugged by Jesus. FBI director Kash Patel ended a press briefing on the investigation with, “Rest now, brother. We have the watch and I’ll see you in Valhalla,” a peculiar bit of macho, military-tinged posturing, given that neither of them served in the armed forces. Vice President J.D. Vance provided Air Force Two to transport Kirk’s family after his death and hosted Kirk’s podcast.
Meanwhile, critics have been equally quick to condemn Kirk for his views on numerous topics such as civil rights, immigration, gun violence and affirmative action. Dozens of people have been suspended or fired from jobs for insensitive remarks and social media posts that offered no sympathy for his passing and even celebrated his death, though in some cases people were reprimanded or terminated for merely highlighting Kirk’s statements and the period in which we live. [We commend to your attention
this typically spot-on piece from Ta-Nehisi Coates on Kirk.]
For instance, veteran MSNBC political commentator Matthew Dowd, a man who has worked with both Republicans and Democrats, was asked about the current political climate. He responded that Kirk “has been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. … Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words” which then “lead to hateful actions. … I think that’s the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.” MSNBC dropped him like a hot rock, even after he attempted to clarify his remarks and apologized for the tone.
Delta, United Airlines and American Airlines sanctioned pilots who they said posted inappropriate comments about Kirk’s death. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said they should be fired. A Secret Service agent was placed on administrative leave and his security clearance revoked after he posted: “If you are Mourning this guy … delete me. He spewed hate and racism on his show.” Defense Secretary (or War Secretary, if you prefer) Pete Hegseth instructed staff to identify service members and those associated with the Pentagon who have mocked or condoned the killing online. A Wisconsin teacher posted that she disagreed with Kirk’s stance that gun deaths are worth it for the Second Amendment. The local Congressman threatened to revoke all Federal funding for the town unless the situation was “rectified” immediately. Teachers in Virginia and Texas risk having their certifications pulled for “inappropriate” remarks about Kirk’s death, though it’s unclear what qualifies.
ABC's parent company shelved Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show indefinitely after right-wing critics took issue with his remarks and the FCC threatened action.
 |
| This smarmy knob |
Kimmel didn't criticize Kirk himself, but said in a monologue, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” FCC chair Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, said on a podcast, "... We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Look, teachers and those with public platforms should be judicious, if not steer clear, when discussing hot-button topics. Private employers absolutely have the right to sanction or fire employees if their actions or social media presence are an affront to either the boss or the business. But this present Kirkification feels more like a loyalty test or a check on who gets to say what, disguised as a call for civility and respectful discourse.
The Disruptor-in-Chief continues to bang the drum that the “radical left” is responsible for the violence and what he called “the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” He conveniently omits the shooting and killing of Minnesota Democratic legislators in June or the home attack against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, plus the fact that neither Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old who attempted to assassinate him in July, or Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s alleged killer, fall short of any standard of supposedly radicalized leftists. Trump and Vance have vowed to go after liberal and left-leaning institutions that they say promote and fund violence, with Kirk’s death as cover.
As to the calls for civility and respectful discourse, I’m old enough to remember a certain African-American occupant of the White House and his family were frequently subject to vile and racist rhetoric, often dressed up as simple political opposition. Adversaries cloaked themselves in Gadsden flags and seized on Jefferson’s quote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (never mind that the quote is often taken out of context and employed to the user’s convenience) In other words, violence toward *my* stated goal is justified, but violence toward *your* goal is unacceptable. Substitute “words and actions” for “violence” in the previous sentence, and that pretty much describes our politics, if not our society. Magical time to be alive, ain’t it?
Posts
