The Charlie Kirk assassination: political violence and the dangerous path forward

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has become a flashpoint that reveals the dangerous trajectory of American political discourse. The aftermath of Kirk's killing has exposed both the immediate dangers of extremist mobilization and the troubling tendency to sanitize controversial figures in death.

Immediate calls for vengeance

In the hours following Kirk's assassination, the far-right mobilized with alarming speed and vitriol. As Reuters reported, Trump supporters immediately blamed the political left for the murder, even before the shooter's identity or motives were known. "They couldn't beat him in a debate, so they assassinated him," wrote Isabella Maria DeLuca, a pardoned January 6 rioter.

The 22-year-old shooter, Tyler Robinson, was captured after a 33-hour manhunt. Utah Governor Spencer Cox said that Robinson had recently become more political and had expressed disdain for Kirk, without any evidence to support it. He also reveals an unfired cartridge recovered from his gun engraved with "Hey, fascist! Catch!" And no one seems to get that as a gaming meme more than a political manifesto.

Computer science professor Jen Golbeck's analysis of over 3,000 posts on X and Patriots.Win revealed "a volatile mix of grief, rage, and signs of growing radicalization." On Patriots.Win, calls for vengeance surged: "The entire Democrat party needs to fucking hang now!" one poster wrote. Another invoked the Reichstag Fire, declaring "It's time to end democracy."

Extremist leaders seize the moment

Pardoned January 6 insurrectionists have used Kirk's death as a rallying cry to reorganize. Stewart Rhodes, the pardoned Oath Keepers founder, announced he would be "rebuilding Oath Keepers" and resuming "public protection of patriots." Speaking on Alex Jones' Infowars podcast, Rhodes urged men to "step up...do your tour of duty" and start vigilante groups.

Other convicted insurrectionists responded similarly. Enrique Tarrio, the pardoned Proud Boys leader, declared "We carry the torch" in Kirk's memory. Jake Lang called for "a MILLION MAN MARCH on DC," while Chris Worrell demanded "RETRIBUTION" for what he called a "POLITICAL ASSASSINATION."

As Mother Jones reported, experts worry these messages from influencers with wide online reach could inspire lone actors to violence. "They're now being told that the same people who tried to steal this country away from you just killed Charlie Kirk, and someone has to do something about that," said Jon Lewis from George Washington University's Program on Extremism.

Presidential rhetoric fans the flames

President Trump's response has been particularly inflammatory. In a televised address, Trump blamed his political opponents for Kirk's death before any investigation was complete:

"For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today."

This baseless politicization serves multiple purposes, as professor John Rennie Short noted: "It takes attention away from the Epstein files, from Israel bombing allies, or Putin continuing to savagely attack Ukraine." More dangerously, it provides potential justification for authoritarian crackdowns.

The Financial Times reported concerns that Trump could use Kirk's killing as a pretext for broader government action against the left. Steven Levitsky from Harvard warned: "This could be used as an accelerant for troops on the streets, [and] efforts to persecute the opposition."

The sanitization of Charlie Kirk's bigotry

While the violent response to Kirk's death is deeply troubling, equally concerning is the tendency to sanitize Kirk's legacy. As Ta-Nehisi Coates documented in Vanity Fair, numerous prominent figures have rushed to memorialize Kirk while ignoring the explicit bigotry that defined his public persona.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein called Kirk "one of the era's most effective practitioners of persuasion," while California Governor Gavin Newsom praised his "passion and commitment to debate." Atlantic writer Sally Jenkins claimed Kirk "argued with civility." I'm not sure whatr Kirk quotes they base any of trhis on, and they've been rightly pilloried online for it.

These characterizations are difficult to reconcile with Kirk's actual record. Kirk regularly demeaned LGBTQ+ individuals as "freaks" and used slurs against transgender people. He claimed that large Islamic areas were "a threat to America" and referred to Muslim political candidate Zohran Mamdani as a "Mohammedan." Kirk habitually railed against "Black crime" and repeated false rape accusations against members of the exonerated Central Park Five.

Kirk's antisemitism was equally explicit, claiming that "Jewish donors" were "the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies."

In short, Kirk's views were heinous, and that part seems now lost.

Thise bigotry extended beyond Kirk as a person to the organization he founded. Crystal Clanton, Turning Point USA's former national field director, once texted "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all." Adviser Rip McIntosh published content claiming Blacks had "become socially incompatible with other races." In 2022, a chapter president joked about wanting more Black students killed.

This culture of hatred makes the post-killing praise for Kirk's "civility" particularly jarring because it is bullshit.

A broader pattern of political violence

Kirk's assassination represents the latest in a disturbing pattern of political violence affecting figures across the ideological spectrum. Trump survived an assassination attempt at a rally last year, while a Democratic state lawmaker in Minnesota and her husband were assassinated in June. The assassin in that case had a hit list of democrats. And he killed an innoccnt dog.

Also, Pennsylvania's Democratic governor Josh Shapiro's home was set on fire with his family inside. (And we must remember the attack on Paul Pelosi, which the right actually mocked.)

What makes the current moment particularly dangerous is how political violence is occurring alongside Trump's consolidation of power. "This is when an aggressive president moving in an aggressive direction can be a dangerous thing," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor. "There are literally federal troops on the streets of American cities, and Trump is flexing federal force whenever he wants to."

The polarization has reached levels reminiscent of failed democracies. Harvard's Levitsky noted that the two main parties now view each other as "enemies not rivals," like 1930s Spain before its democratic breakdown. "When two parties view each other as an existential threat, the temptation to engage in violent and illegal behavior is very high," he said.

Using the Spanish analogy, I remain antifa.

The dangerous precedent

Experts have drawn parallels between the response to Kirk's assassination and historical precedents that led to democratic collapse.

The comparison to the Reichstag Fire—used by Nazis to justify dismantling constitutional freedoms—has been invoked both by extremists calling for crackdowns and by experts warning about these dangers.

"Charlie Kirk being assassinated is the American Reichstag fire," declared rightwing blogger Matt Forney, calling for Democratic politicians to be arrested and the party banned. Such rhetoric is particularly concerning given the current administration's documented willingness to push constitutional boundaries.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has already warned that the U.S. would take action against foreigners "praising, rationalizing, or making light" of Kirk's killing, suggesting they would not be "welcome visitors to our country."

This represents yet another troubling expansion of government authority over protected speech.

The role of social media echo chambers

The rapid mobilization of extremist sentiment following Kirk's death highlights the dangerous role social media plays amplifying violent rhetoric. Platforms like Patriots.Win and Telegram have become breeding grounds for increasingly radical discourse, while mainstream platforms struggle to moderate content that walks the line between protected speech and incitement to violence. Or, they've thrown in the towel on moderation altogether.

Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok posted screenshots of social media users allegedly celebrating Kirk's death, while Ryan Nichols urged followers to identify and harass these individuals: "Tag them, their employers, and make it so uncomfortable for them to even leave their house." Of course, none of these were ever validated or proven real. They make it up and report it as truth. And the MAGA flock believes. This doxxing behavior represents a clear escalation from online rhetoric to real-world harassment.

The amplification effect of social media means that extreme voices can reach vast audiences instantly. As Nealin Parker of Common Ground USA noted, "Right now people are willing to believe terrible things about the other side. What's happening online really matters."

Democratic failure of leadership

While Democratic leaders have appropriately condemned the violence, their responses have largely failed to address the underlying dynamics driving political polarization. Generic calls for "unity" and "civility" ring hollow when one side is actively mobilizing for what they frame as an existential war.

Senator Elizabeth Warren pushed back on criticism that Democrats needed to tone down rhetoric: "Oh, please. Why don't you start with the president of the United States?"

While her frustration is understandable, such responses may inadvertently validate the "both sides" framing that obscures the asymmetric nature of current political violence. The whataboutism burns.

The historical echo

Coates' comparison to post-Civil War America is particularly apt. Just as the country once ignored the explicit pro-slavery words of Confederate leaders and transformed them into "gallant knights," there's a similar tendency to sanitize Kirk's legacy. This historical amnesia enabled decades of racial terrorism and apartheid.

Today's republicans gleefully are following the lost cause playbook, making Charlie Kirk the next R.E. Lee.

Coates notes:

"The rewriting and the ignoring were done not just by Confederates, but also by putative allies for whom the reduction of Black people to serfdom was the unfortunate price of white unity,"

The same dynamic appears to be at work today, where the desire for "unity" and "healing" leads to willful blindness about the nature of extremist movements.

So, what's next?

The response to Kirk's assassination suggests American democracy faces its most serious test since the Civil War. The combination of extremist mobilization, presidential legitimization of violence, and mainstream media sanitization creates conditions ripe for democratic collapse.

Several factors make the current moment particularly dangerous:

Institutional capture

With pardoned insurrectionists reorganizing and Trump loyalists controlling key government positions, the normal guardrails against political violence have been dismantled.

Asymmetric polarization

While both parties express concern about political violence, only one side is actively organizing militia groups and calling for the elimination of political opposition.

Information warfare

Social media echo chambers enable the rapid spread of conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric while mainstream media often fails to accurately characterize the threat.

Historical precedent

The parallels to failed democracies are becoming clear, yet there seems to be little recognition of the gravity of the moment among political elites.

And where do we go from here?

Preventing further democratic erosion or collapse requires more than generic calls for civility. Several concrete steps are necessary:

Accurate threat assessment

Media and political leaders must stop treating asymmetric polarization as a "both sides" problem and characterize the nature of the extremist threat.

Platform accountability

Social media companies must take responsibility for the role their platforms play in radicalizing users and organizing violence.

Legal consequences

Despite presidential pardons, those organizing violence must face legal accountability under state and local laws.

Historical honesty

We all must resist thhe tendency to sanitize extremist figures in death. Honest accounting of their beliefs and actions is essential to prevent their vile ideas from spreading.

Democratic renewal

Ultimately, countering authoritarianism requires strengthening democratic institutions and expanding participation rather than simply defending the status quo.

Can we count on the institutions that have traditionally served as bulwarks? I'd argue no, as this year has shown how eager they are to capitulate. We are going to have to hold their feet to the fire at every step.

Organize. March. Strike. Vote.

The stakes could not be higher

Charlie Kirk's death represents a terrible act, but what ensues may be more so: more loss of human life, escalating of political violence, and setting a dangerous precedent for weaponizing such events . While we should condem Kirk's death regardless of his beliefs, the aftermath reveals how precarious American democracy is now.

The sanitization of Kirk's extremist record, combined with the mobilization of violent rhetoric by pardoned insurrectionists and the legitimization of their grievances by the highest levels of government, creates a perfect storm for democratic collapse. The historical parallels to failed democracies are becoming impossible to ignore.

As Coates warned, "If you would look away from the words of Charlie Kirk, from what else would you look away?" The answer to that question may well determine whether American democracy survives the current crisis.

The coming months will test whether democratic institutions can withstand an unprecedented assault from within. The response to Kirk's assassination suggests the outcome is far from certain. What is clear is that generic appeals to civility and unity will not o address a threat this serious. Only honest confrontation of the nature of American extremism—and the ways mainstream institutions legitimize it—can allow us to hope to find a path back from the brink.

This is for all the marbles. American democracy faces an existential threat, and the clock is ticking.

Non in cautus futuri.

Help Support Not Unmindful

Contribute Now

Primary Sources:
Guy Chazan: American right vows vengeance after killing of Charlie Kirk. Financial Times.
Kiera Butler and Julianne McShane: Pardoned Insurrectionists Are Using Charlie Kirk’s Death to Call for Civil War. Mother Jones.
Joseph Tanfani, Ned Parker,and John Shiffman: Right-wing anger surges as Kirk’s killing fuels calls for vengeance. Reuters.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause. Vanity Fair.