Defiance and Victory

What conservatives and others who believe in free speech and debate should do in light of Charlie Kirk's assassination.

I didn’t know Charlie Kirk and never met him. He was in a different generation in more ways than one. As Will Sommer wrote today,

Kirk reimagined what it means to be a modern right-wing political figure. His most lasting legacy may be that he showed the Republican party the way to compete in today’s frenetic media world. More than anyone else without the surname Trump, Kirk is the figure whose rise best illustrates the changing of the American right.

AS A TEEN REPUBLICAN in suburban Chicago, Kirk studied talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh and thought about how to adapt Limbaugh’s mix of bombast, politics, and entertainment to his own generation. He launched Turning Point USA in 2012 as a sort of next-generation vehicle for campus Republican activism. It was wildly different from the stodgy, nerdy, buttoned-up, loafers-and-slacks contrarians that had defined college Republicanism for generations.

Did you call? I actually have the loafers and slacks I had as a Carolina undergrad, and they still fit — on a really good day, and if you don’t look that hard.

The generational shift Kirk so brilliantly navigated gives us a clue about why he was murdered: He was murdered because he was effective in helping restore power to a man the Left hates with historic passion. He helped sell populist Republicanism to a new generation as no one had been able to do before. One reason Trump is so genuinely saddened by his murder is that he lost one of his best and most effective political (and it seems personal) friends.

I don’t know that the killer acted to eliminate Kirk’s effectiveness and/or intimidate others who would follow him. But when even the Washington Post thinks intimidation might well be the key, I have to suspect I’m on to something. As the Post says:

Police haven’t yet shared a motive for the shooter. But Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and a co-author of the book “Radical American Partisanship,” told me in June after Minnesota lawmakers were shot that political violence is usually designed to send a message to other authority figures.

“Sometimes it is used to simply eliminate a political enemy, but more often it is used to intimidate others from speaking or acting,” she said. “It rejects the premise of democratic governance and instills an atmosphere of fear…”

In that way, it can be corrosive to democracy. Kirk was preparing to speak at what was supposed to be a peaceful — if not rhetorically heated — debate at a college campus in Utah, amid a largely friendly audience. A woman who attended with her toddler told The Washington Post she liked how Kirk was an unabashed White Christian and wanted to hear him speak. Instead, she had to grab her baby’s arm and run when she heard gunshots.

If (as the Post and I and many others seem to think likely), the assassin’s idea was to intimidate others from following Kirk’s patented “Prove Me Wrong” debate extravaganzas, I have an idea:

In a month or two, hold the biggest debate extravaganza the world has ever seen. Maybe a bit before Thanksgiving, a wonderfully American holiday when the weather is still decently good. We’d use the Capital Mall. We’ll have “Prove Me Wrong” debate tables everywhere. One thing that won’t be allowed is hate and its cousins; hence, there would be no “Jews are filth” table; no “Muslims are animals,” no “Trump is Hitler” or “Biden’s a Moron.” Short of hate masquerading as ideas, all actual ideas would be welcome. Anything you like: the death penalty, abortion, clean energy, prison reform, guaranteed annual income, the gold standard, unitary executive, sexual mores, Wokeism, capitalism, traditional values, the welfare state, AI, communal living — you name it. As I understand it, Kirk put no limit on any legitimate topic for debate, and the Debate Fest to be held in his honor won’t either.

The outing would need a sponsor. It shouldn’t be the government — too stodgy, too potentially partisan, and not Charlie’s style in any event. It should be a private organization with an established reputation for sponsoring debate and doing so fairly and courteously to the participants. I know an organization like that, but hesitate to put forward any names before others have had a chance.

The purpose of the Charlie Kirk Debate Fest would be simple — to carry forward his mission. And one more: to let the assassin and his world know

YOU LOST.