from the on-violence dept
I didn’t like Charlie Kirk. His morals and principles, as expressed through his rhetoric and actions, disgusted me. I’ve no reason to mourn his death—and no plans to celebrate it.
Kirk was killed in what is most likely an act of politically inspired violence. He was shot during one of his usual speaking events; at the moment before he was shot, he was trying to link transgender people to mass casualty shootings in a way that statistics don’t bear out. His death will galvanize conservatives, who will claim that political violence is “not the answer” and “Democrats caused this” but who refused to condemn—and sometimes mocked—the attack against Paul Pelosi that was motivated by conservative rhetoric.
This brief essay isn’t necessarily about conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat, or whatever other sociopolitical dichotomy you might have in your head. Sure, it would be easy to take that route, especially with Donald Trump as the head of the Republican table. What this essay is about is violence.
For months now, in this site’s comments sections, I’ve been mocked for (and pressured to give up) a stance I hold with complete sincerity: Violence should be the absolute last resort for any issue, especially sociopolitical ones. My stance has been erroneously likened to suicidal pacifism. I don’t believe in such a thing and I would never ask others to believe in it. What I do believe is that violence, like the murder of Charlie Kirk, creates more problems than it solves.
Sure, Kirk is dead, and he will never again spread his brand of vile rhetoric anywhere. But now Kirk is being turned into a martyr to a cause and a party for which he likely didn’t intend to die; those who believe in the MAGA movement will use his death as a rallying cry for going after the “enemies” of that movement (and its leader). His murder is likely to beget more violence, which will cause more pain and more strife, which will further fracture our already fragile society. No social good is served by him being murdered in an act of political vigilantism.
My beliefs about violence are driven by the idea that the use of violence curtails any chance of a situation being solved peacefully. Violence always makes a conflict worse, especially when it becomes the go-to “answer” for conflict resolution instead of the last resort. But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table. Even then, one should only use as much violence as is necessary to stop a situation from getting worse. Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option. Once someone is dead, you can’t bring them back, so you better be goddamn sure that killing them is the only way to save yourself from them.
Charlie Kirk is dead and nothing will bring him back. We are all a little worse off for his death—not because he was a good person, but because his death is likely to inspire more violence. That will cause far more problems than murdering him could ever hope to solve.
Filed Under: charlie kirk, political violence
