Letter to the Editor: The week that followed — more meditations on an American inflection point
The following column is a submitted Letter to the Editor from Zach Donaldson, an Ohio U alumn and current graduate student studying Political Science.
Please note that the views and opinions of this letter do not reflect those of The New Political.
This Monday, I published an article in the wake of the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and the Evergreen High School Shooting. Jarred from witnessing gory and raw footage, I was consumed by the expected cascade of social media responses. I typed a meditation far more personal to the matter than political. As expected, it ignited conversations, some of which were critical of my work in ways I did not agree with, and some of which were supportive of my article in ways I equally disagreed with.
I still stand by everything I said. My faith dictates and demands of me unwavering compassion: one I must extend to those whose missions and views I not only dislike, but those I detest as hateful and dangerous. I don’t seek to proselytize - not everyone must mourn or process things the same - but I take no shame in praying publicly on those matters. I do not believe any person on this earth gets to pass judgment when it is just for someone to live and die, nor do I think weaponizing those deaths to point blame towards others is productive.
Yet as the response to this tragedy has been borne out over the past week, I realized that there is a deep importance in what my article left unsaid - that in writing quickly, I missed the mark in ways that could more fully capture the gravity of the moment we are in. That is a critique that I take seriously, and one I will address today with two points that I think should continue to guide our collective conversations in these uncharted waters.
Point One: Empathy should not ask us to rewrite history
My first appeal to aspirational values intentionally omitted points about Kirk’s specific statements. I didn’t want to write just about Charlie Kirk: because the conversations in my sphere were not merely about Charlie Kirk. They included sweeping accusations about the intentions and feelings of everyday Americans that were only based off microcosms of data – like the things folks chose to put on their Instagram story.
However, the martyrdom of Kirk among certain excesses of both the political right and left necessitate attention. Compassion doesn’t ask us to suspend reality – it forces us to recognize it. We can and should abhor tragedy without building false narratives simply because they are more palatable to our mourning. We flirt with a dangerous game when we misrepresent a record that very readily speaks for itself. Facts are facts, and they aren’t things we get to contort and sanitize when it is expedient.
It is undoubtedly true that Charlie Kirk was a deeply influential figure who captured the attention and support of a large swathe of young conservatives in this country.
It is demonstrably false to say that his tactics were ones steeped in “good faith debate” and appeals to common humanity and decency.
A Charlie Kirk event on a college campus consisted of humiliation theatre. Those who stepped up to “debate” Kirk were often greeted with shifting goal posts, distasteful rhetoric, and a raucous crowd intent on reinforcing the same tired tropes.
It is trivializing to claim that many of Kirk’s views were ones to merely be “disagreed with.” They were more often than not ones to be abhorred. Kirk didn’t say things that were ‘debatably’ racist, sexist, and harmful: they just were sexist, racist, and harmful.
In regard to Black Americans, Kirk stated that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact.”
When discussing Taylor Swift, Kirk said, “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”
When talking about laws on gender-affirming care, Kirk exclaimed, “We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”
On religion, Kirk argued that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”
Finally, the very political violence we should reject was one Kirk himself did not shy in supporting, decrying that the person who assaulted Paul Pelosi should get his bail paid, and calling for the execution of Joe Biden.
These are only highlights of proposed views that seemed to be deeply malignant of marginalized communities and opposing voices. Kirk’s legacy is not a checkered history; it is one doused in ink. What Kirk stood for should be summarily rejected, and what happened to him should be summarily rejected. I mourn him as a human being, a father, and a husband, but I hold no warmth for the influence he exerted.
Point Two: Words are not violent, and the laws should not be based off people’s feelings
As discussed, facts are facts. No attempted explanation of Kirk’s worst excesses could make his statements sound remotely rational or promotable. They also couldn’t make them violent.
As FIRE’s Founder Greg Lukianoff put it, “words aren’t bullets” – and we paddle into very dangerous waters when we try to blur those lines.
Democracy requires of us a difficult and virtuous task: a willingness to face disgusting, harmful, and hateful worldviews with the pen, not the sword. It does not mean every opinion is equal: because ideologies which embrace the worst excesses of man ought to be dragged to the rhetorical wood chipper. What it does mean is that to keep our cherished institutions, we have to buy into base aspirational values that protect them.
Words can be deeply hurtful and damaging. Words can instill malicious and harmful views. But short of words which cause imminent and lawless action, they are not so powerful that they should be treated with a response from the law. Moreso, they should never be treated with a firearm. If we act as if someone’s speech is an existential and palpable threat to our existence, the line of appropriate response will fade, our freedoms will dwindle, and aggression will rise.
Free speech is a bargain we made a long time ago. Resolving disputes through peaceful means isn’t always pleasant, but it beats the alternative. If we continue along a zero-sum game, which condones firing, deporting, prosecuting, and even killing people for exercising constitutionally protected rights, we will cease to live in a country that has any provisions to protect what you can say, think, and feel. The cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, the sweeping threats of persecution being issued by Trump and Vance, and the rising acceptance of political violence are all deeply concerning.
Going Forward
Charlie Kirk’s assassination is an inflection point in this country. It is a deep wound which forces us to reckon with our relationships with violence, a free marketplace of ideas, and the notion that there are still base values we can agree on as a country. As our leaders' responses continue to unfold in the coming days, it is important that we are vigilant believers in hard truths and steadfast defenders of difficult freedoms.