I believe that Charlie Kirk being shot it terrible, and terrifying, and really wish it had not happened. He was also definitely not in a position with enough power to be compared to Hitler. But when you say, "We should all feel lucky to live in a time and place where domestic political leaders are not bringing about mass violence," you loose me. Have you seen what is happening in Palestine? What is happening to immigrants in this country? What happened to a boat of people in the ocean? Political leaders ARE bringing about mass violence, and to downplay that is as terrifying and dangerous as Kirk being shot.
Although I don't want to imply that it is as if we are living through the Holocaust, we are not there yet, and maybe we are "lucky" things aren't worse, but our political leaders are definitely not trending away from mass violence.
My number one domestic example would be the ICE raids, which many Republican (and some Democratic) leaders support. (https://phr.org/news/ice-immigration-raids-endanger-health-and-human-rights-phr/) I would also put sending the national guard into cities under the heading of trending towards violence. Even if no physical violence is committed, having to walk past people holding guns every day is a form of violence. Inspiring fear is a form of violence. Gabe, in his piece, is saying that words cannot be violence, but I think the rhetoric from many politicians on both sides has turned unnecessarily violent. Refusing to implement stronger gun laws, so we keep having to watch students being slain at schools is a form of violence. The list goes on, and it's hard to think of a politician on either side who isn't part of it...
That is my real comment. Your examples of leaders (not fringe zealots) are Republican. I can't think of any Democratic leaders who promote violence, even in a couched way.
The horrible rhetoric of Democrats is healthcare for everyone and help to immigrants. The authoritarian moves of Democrats are forgiving student debt and asking social media sites to not spread misinformation about vaccines.
False equivalents benefit the more egregious side. We can't fix a problem if we don't first identify it. I'm sure there are many Democrats on the fringes that secretively support violence, but none that I know of and none who are at the presidential or congressional level. We need to admit this or we will never fix the problem.
The Republicans are the ones currently in power right now, and in positions to enact this kind of systemic violence. I agree that the rhetoric and everything on the right feels much more violent, but the response from the left also often uses violent language and paints the right as an evil. We demonify them too.
Also, the Democratic politicians still largely support helping Israel slaughter Palestinians, which isn't domestic, but is probably comparable to the Holocaust, and making us watch that, and be complicit in it by association, I would say is also violence
I am incredibly sad for Charlie Kirk's family, for the kid who thought he needed to do this, and his family, and for all of us, that we have to witness something like the murder of Charlie Kirk, and live in a place where that can happen, but there was a great quote in this piece about why some people aren't feeling sad about it: "they argued that we conveniently ignore the violence enacted by the police, the violence against immigrants and asylum seekers, and the violence of a healthcare system that lets people die for lack of acceas, among other things."
The world is inherently violent, and getting away from it completely is impossible, but I wish we had politicians who were at least trying...
As usual, Gabe, you've gotten to the heart of the matter while still providing balanced information. I couldn't agree with you more and as a high school Social Studies teacher who is passionate about teaching my students about civil discourse and how to be compassionate citizens, I will be using your post today as the fuel for our discussions in the upcoming days. Thank you for being on the front lines of balanced journalism.
Of course I feel any violence was wrong, but the nasty rhetoric of today’s politics is disgraceful, and Kirk was part of that and was purposely provocative and said many awful things about fellow US citizens. Aside, from this I feel more pain for families whose children were slaughtered in school. Our country is in decline.
Our president is played like a fiddle by Putin and Netanyahu. The Epstein coverup is disgraceful. We have zero interest in gun control. The cabinet is for the most part unqualified. We blow boats out of the water without due process. We threaten colleges and large firms. Out president lies continually and we wonder why there is more violence.
Gabe, I've been following you for years and appreciate your factual approach to issues, without letting the heightened emotions of fringe politics seep into your reporting. However, I worry that you are so committed to neutrality and idealism that you are refusing to acknowledge our current reality.
Kirk was not "seeking out people who disagreed with him" to talk politics, he was creating rage bait. He consistently used violent rhetoric against marginalized groups. ("Charlie DESTROYS feminist" or "Charlie DESTROYS 'queer' student", not "Charlie debates student.") He created spectacle for 13 years, and didn't seem to care that his sensationalist rhetoric and approach was helping contribute to radicalization of young people. He spread misinformation to further his political opinions. He was an excellent example of everything that is wrong with our current political climate.
Agreed, the martyrdom and lionization of Kirk by the press and figures today is really disheartening. Let’s talk about gun violence and pressure all legislators to do something about this, but spending pages and pages presuming he had any positive intent is an insult to marginalized people in the country that Kirk constantly insulted in the name of “just asking questions.”
I agree with your reaction and overall sentiment of the article almost wholeheartedly, but I fear that the task of “grounding ourselves in reality” is a much more difficult in our current world than it has been in the past.
I don’t think political violence or the glorification of it is unique to one side of the aisle. However, it does not seem unfair to say that at least when it comes to elected officials and prominent political leaders, the left has been much quicker to disavow and attempt to turn the heat down in such situations than their counterparts on the right. I encourage anyone to go back and watch Joe Biden’s remarks after the assassination attempt on Trump last year.
Compare statements from politicians like Biden, Newsome, etc. to the ongoing ridicule of Paul Pelosi or the widespread attempt to blame Tim Walz for the assassinations in Minnesota, including by Senator Mike Lee. The worst act of political violence in recent memory, January 6th, has never been reckoned with and now those who perpetrated it walk free and are even lionized as martyrs and victims on the right.
You point to an account with over a million followers that is true, but in no way is a tasteless tweet undoubtedly seeking to drive engagement on the cesspool that is X comparable to a direct statement from the President and other elected officials like Nancy Mace who directly blamed the assassination on Democrats/Leftists without a suspect even named yet, let alone in custody. Even the account on the right calling for war is ran by someone who has been in the White House under this administration in an effort to control and push the Trump admins narratives. Was @vidsthatgohard ever afforded the same level of access or credibility by a Democrat?
Political violence is wrong and if it becomes broadly acceptable it will only lead to further unraveling of the discourse and stability of the country and the world at large. It is ignorant to attempt to blame one side fully for the climate we currently live in, but it serves no one to ignore the reality that the right time and again fails to make the same good faith efforts as their counterparts on the left.
Words matter, and it is possible to hold a paradox, conflicting words, in our hearts at the same time. I can be concerned, distraught about the human character flaw to advocate violence and commit murder, and at the same time not see the irony in the assassination of a man who believed a few deaths from gun violence as acceptable to guarantee the idol of Second Amendment rights. Charlie Kirk may have been a loving father and good friend in private, but I can't know that. All I can know is his vitriolic preaching and teaching that gave permission to the basest of human instincts to dehumanize. You are behind the curve on this one, Gabe. Your title is too late. This IS our future.
It’s possible to disagree with someone’s views without assuming the worst about their character. Charlie Kirk spoke boldly about tough issues—many didn’t agree with him—but boldness is not the same as hatred. He never advocated for violence, and it’s unfair to tie his defense of constitutional rights to the actions of violent individuals.
You say you can't know his heart—but many of us did. He was a devoted husband, father, and friend whose life was deeply shaped by his Christian faith. His love for God and people wasn’t a performance—it was the foundation of how he lived, led, and spoke. Reducing his entire legacy to a narrative of “dehumanization” ignores the countless lives he impacted through his conviction, compassion, and commitment to truth.
Truth and compassion aren’t mutually exclusive. We need more of both.
Sorry you lost me on this one. It's always interesting how non-marginalized people lecture others who have been subjected to lifetimes of daily violence, hate rhetoric and ultimately death, to just give peace a chance. Rest in peace? He never gave marginalized individuals a minute of peace when he walked this Earth.
I hear your pain, and I won’t dismiss it—violence, hatred, and injustice are real, and they deeply wound lives and communities. But I have to push back on the idea that Charlie Kirk never gave marginalized people “a minute of peace.” That’s simply not true.
He challenged systems and ideas—yes. But that’s not the same as hating people. His faith in Christ shaped his passion for truth and freedom, even when it made him unpopular. He believed every person is made in God’s image, and that conviction drove much of what he did.
It’s easy to judge someone based on headlines or soundbites. I didn’t know Charlie personally, but I followed his work closely—his podcasts, speeches, and writing. What I saw wasn’t a man filled with hate, but someone who spoke boldly from conviction, challenged ideas he believed were harmful, and cared deeply about faith, family, and freedom. He didn’t always say things perfectly, but he didn’t speak with malice. He spoke with purpose.
You don’t have to agree with him. But let’s not rewrite his life through a lens of bitterness. He’s gone now—and whether you loved him or didn’t understand him—I think we can all agree this world needs more real conversation and less hatred.
I feel like something missing from this current discourse on political violence, including this essay, is acknowledgment of the very real violence being carried out by those in power. Viewpoints are not just viewpoints when people’s human rights and physical safety is being actively compromised as a result of governmental action.
Calling upon people to temper their rhetoric is a nice and valid thing, but we absolutely cannot stop there. People, especially those with enormous power, should be called upon to temper their actions in this moment. Not because it will prevent things like this, but because it’s the right thing to do. I fear that all of this will be used as a justification not to.
Replying to you Sarah because I totally agree with this, but also wanted to make a point I felt was similar to yours. My own thought is, part of the reason political violence is becoming more normalized IS because of the normalization of mass shootings in schools, churches, theaters, you name it –– and our political leaders do carry responsibility for that. If we and our kids all face those kinds of threats of violence, why should our political leaders expect to somehow be immune to them? We're *all* at risk, and we deserve far better from our leadership.
If there could only be one article written in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, I would like it to be this one. Thanks Gabe for the balanced wisdom you brought to this.
I hope our luck isn't running out. Thank you for writing this so clearly, being forthright and plain, and for publishing this morning. Those who celebrate his death are the fringe and should be treated as such, just as those who celebrated the deaths of UHC CEO Brian Thompson; the two Israeli embassy employees Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim; and state legislator Melissa Hortman. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.
Sorry, while I do agree we should not be in a time where gun violence and violence against elected officials is the norm, your conclusions are off. Charlie Kirk said that gun violence was ok if it meant that the second amendment was protected. He said that he would not get on an airplane if it was being flown by a POC. What you thought were engaging debates were one sided trolling at best. Mostly he was hateful and harmful to marginalized communities and passed it off as just his "thoughts and opinions". That's not discourse. That's hurtful. And it's not ok.
I want to be clear: some of what you’ve said here is factually wrong, and the rest is heavily misrepresented.
Charlie never said he wouldn’t fly with a person of color. What he actually said—on a 2024 podcast—was: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” in the context of criticizing DEI hiring practices. Was that statement provocative? Yes. But it wasn’t a declaration of racism—it was a warning about the consequences of prioritizing identity over merit in high-stakes industries. Still, it’s important to quote people accurately if we’re going to have a real conversation.
As for gun violence: Charlie did say he believed the Second Amendment comes with real-world risks—including gun deaths—but saw that as a tragic tradeoff for protecting all other freedoms. He didn’t “celebrate” violence. He acknowledged the painful cost of liberty. That’s not the same thing.
It’s fair to disagree with Charlie’s views (I didn't always agree with him). But it’s not fair—or honest—to twist them into something they weren’t.
So, I got the essence but not the direct quote correct. Either way, he only was concerned about Black people being qualified. That’s racist and bigoted. Not that legacy kids get into colleges based on donations and “family”, but he was worried about skin color. And you thought this was a point to make? In no way does this make him a good person. In no way does this elevate his thought processes. In no way does this make him look better. No. He was the one going on and on about race and bigotry but we’re supposed to mourn this “thoughtful” person? Nope.
I hear your perspective, and I won’t pretend Charlie’s comment about pilots didn’t spark anger—it did. But to be fair, his point wasn’t about skin color being the issue. It was about his concern that DEI policies could lower standards in critical professions. You may see that as racist; I see it as a critique of policy, not people.
What I won’t do is reduce his entire life and legacy to one controversial soundbite. Charlie was a husband, father, and man of faith who cared deeply about America’s future. We don’t have to agree on his views to at least acknowledge that truth.
This is my last reply. And I hope you don’t reply anymore. The pilot comments were one of MANY that Charlie Kirk said that targeted POC, gays, and other minorities. It wasn’t one sound bite. He thought pieced based on the Bible that gays should be stoned to death. None of this was ok. And so, I will not revise history to make him some great man. No. He should not have died by gun violence. But me and others do not owe that man’s legacy anything more than the unvarnished truth. And that means the whole truth. Not the whitewashed truth that’s being presented now.
I’ll respect that this is your last reply, but I do want to clarify one thing: Charlie Kirk never called for gays to be stoned to death. That is simply not true. Critiquing policies or holding to biblical views of marriage is not the same as calling for violence.
We clearly see Charlie very differently. You are free to hold your perspective. For me, I will remember him as a husband, father, man of faith, and someone who believed deeply in dialogue—even with opponents.
This will be my last word here. I pray we all find a way to disagree without dehumanizing.
Gabe, you concluded your timely essay, "our leaders will only be as level-headed as the people that elect them." That is only true if we voters are presented with level headed candidates. Our candidates today are selected by the partisan fringes of the 2 major parties. They do not represent the sober, moderate middle that reflects leve headed values. Our process of candidate selection needs radical reform.
Lots of folks on here with varying opinions. I love all of you for expressing your opinions whether I agree with you or not. I'm so glad we have a forum such as this where we can all learn from one another. Even if we are only learning nuances. Gabe is such an amazing writer and thinker. He can put together an essay in a few hours which would take me a month. I think we can all agree with the idea that something is broken in this country. Let's try to remember all the things we have in common and embrace our country's greatest asset--its diversity.
Thanks for your kind words, Kenneth — I feel the same exact way: grateful to everyone coming to this space to share their thoughts, whether they agree with me or not.
The President of the US could certainly help in toning down the rhetoric but has down all he can to inflame the situation by blaming the left. Please acknowledge that that is true.
I am opposed to violence and I wish this event had not happened, and I wish that Charlie Kirk survived. But we have to push back on this "he did politics the right way thing" - for one, TPUSA published lists of academics and liberal activists that served as a source of death threats for ten years and counting against these people.
For another, his politics are explicitly exclusionary, that is, in his world, a whole lot of people would be *not allowed* to be part of the "political dialogue" - they'd be banned. Here's famous civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill responding to Ezra Klien's quote “Kirk & I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side of the continued possibility of American politics.” : "So it’s personal? B/c if you were a Black woman or transgender, Kirk would not imagine you having any role in the future of American politics." https://bsky.app/profile/sifill.bsky.social/post/3lykzhrmpec2f
Appreciate your thoughtful concern—and I want to respond clearly.
First, the Professor Watchlist wasn't created to incite violence. TPUSA launched it to expose what many conservative students saw as bias and hostility toward their views in higher education. Charlie repeatedly called for peaceful debate, not harassment. If bad actors used that list to threaten professors, that’s wrong—but that was never the intent, and Charlie never encouraged it. Accountability for ideas is not the same as incitement.
Second, calling Charlie’s politics “explicitly exclusionary” isn’t accurate. He debated anyone—regardless of race, gender, or identity. He strongly disagreed with DEI quotas, identity politics, and transgender medical practices, yes—but disagreement is not the same as exclusion or hate. He believed in a merit-based, truth-driven society grounded in Christian values—not one divided by labels. That’s not exclusion—it’s conviction.
Charlie’s vision of American politics included everyone—just not every idea. And there’s a difference.
I believe that Charlie Kirk being shot it terrible, and terrifying, and really wish it had not happened. He was also definitely not in a position with enough power to be compared to Hitler. But when you say, "We should all feel lucky to live in a time and place where domestic political leaders are not bringing about mass violence," you loose me. Have you seen what is happening in Palestine? What is happening to immigrants in this country? What happened to a boat of people in the ocean? Political leaders ARE bringing about mass violence, and to downplay that is as terrifying and dangerous as Kirk being shot.
Although I don't want to imply that it is as if we are living through the Holocaust, we are not there yet, and maybe we are "lucky" things aren't worse, but our political leaders are definitely not trending away from mass violence.
What Democratic leaders are trending toward violence? What Republican leaders are trending toward violence?
My number one domestic example would be the ICE raids, which many Republican (and some Democratic) leaders support. (https://phr.org/news/ice-immigration-raids-endanger-health-and-human-rights-phr/) I would also put sending the national guard into cities under the heading of trending towards violence. Even if no physical violence is committed, having to walk past people holding guns every day is a form of violence. Inspiring fear is a form of violence. Gabe, in his piece, is saying that words cannot be violence, but I think the rhetoric from many politicians on both sides has turned unnecessarily violent. Refusing to implement stronger gun laws, so we keep having to watch students being slain at schools is a form of violence. The list goes on, and it's hard to think of a politician on either side who isn't part of it...
That is my real comment. Your examples of leaders (not fringe zealots) are Republican. I can't think of any Democratic leaders who promote violence, even in a couched way.
The horrible rhetoric of Democrats is healthcare for everyone and help to immigrants. The authoritarian moves of Democrats are forgiving student debt and asking social media sites to not spread misinformation about vaccines.
False equivalents benefit the more egregious side. We can't fix a problem if we don't first identify it. I'm sure there are many Democrats on the fringes that secretively support violence, but none that I know of and none who are at the presidential or congressional level. We need to admit this or we will never fix the problem.
The Republicans are the ones currently in power right now, and in positions to enact this kind of systemic violence. I agree that the rhetoric and everything on the right feels much more violent, but the response from the left also often uses violent language and paints the right as an evil. We demonify them too.
Also, the Democratic politicians still largely support helping Israel slaughter Palestinians, which isn't domestic, but is probably comparable to the Holocaust, and making us watch that, and be complicit in it by association, I would say is also violence
I am incredibly sad for Charlie Kirk's family, for the kid who thought he needed to do this, and his family, and for all of us, that we have to witness something like the murder of Charlie Kirk, and live in a place where that can happen, but there was a great quote in this piece about why some people aren't feeling sad about it: "they argued that we conveniently ignore the violence enacted by the police, the violence against immigrants and asylum seekers, and the violence of a healthcare system that lets people die for lack of acceas, among other things."
The world is inherently violent, and getting away from it completely is impossible, but I wish we had politicians who were at least trying...
https://open.substack.com/pub/historycanthide/p/thousands-of-gen-zers-dont-feel-bad?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=o36pf
As usual, Gabe, you've gotten to the heart of the matter while still providing balanced information. I couldn't agree with you more and as a high school Social Studies teacher who is passionate about teaching my students about civil discourse and how to be compassionate citizens, I will be using your post today as the fuel for our discussions in the upcoming days. Thank you for being on the front lines of balanced journalism.
Of course I feel any violence was wrong, but the nasty rhetoric of today’s politics is disgraceful, and Kirk was part of that and was purposely provocative and said many awful things about fellow US citizens. Aside, from this I feel more pain for families whose children were slaughtered in school. Our country is in decline.
Our president is played like a fiddle by Putin and Netanyahu. The Epstein coverup is disgraceful. We have zero interest in gun control. The cabinet is for the most part unqualified. We blow boats out of the water without due process. We threaten colleges and large firms. Out president lies continually and we wonder why there is more violence.
Gabe, I've been following you for years and appreciate your factual approach to issues, without letting the heightened emotions of fringe politics seep into your reporting. However, I worry that you are so committed to neutrality and idealism that you are refusing to acknowledge our current reality.
Kirk was not "seeking out people who disagreed with him" to talk politics, he was creating rage bait. He consistently used violent rhetoric against marginalized groups. ("Charlie DESTROYS feminist" or "Charlie DESTROYS 'queer' student", not "Charlie debates student.") He created spectacle for 13 years, and didn't seem to care that his sensationalist rhetoric and approach was helping contribute to radicalization of young people. He spread misinformation to further his political opinions. He was an excellent example of everything that is wrong with our current political climate.
Agreed, the martyrdom and lionization of Kirk by the press and figures today is really disheartening. Let’s talk about gun violence and pressure all legislators to do something about this, but spending pages and pages presuming he had any positive intent is an insult to marginalized people in the country that Kirk constantly insulted in the name of “just asking questions.”
Completely agree. Bothsidesism...when there is clearly a huge difference.
You nailed it ….rage bait. Trump will use this for more revenge. Kirk was too arrogant and believed he could say anything without consequence.
False equivalents benefit the more egregious party.
I agree with your reaction and overall sentiment of the article almost wholeheartedly, but I fear that the task of “grounding ourselves in reality” is a much more difficult in our current world than it has been in the past.
I don’t think political violence or the glorification of it is unique to one side of the aisle. However, it does not seem unfair to say that at least when it comes to elected officials and prominent political leaders, the left has been much quicker to disavow and attempt to turn the heat down in such situations than their counterparts on the right. I encourage anyone to go back and watch Joe Biden’s remarks after the assassination attempt on Trump last year.
Compare statements from politicians like Biden, Newsome, etc. to the ongoing ridicule of Paul Pelosi or the widespread attempt to blame Tim Walz for the assassinations in Minnesota, including by Senator Mike Lee. The worst act of political violence in recent memory, January 6th, has never been reckoned with and now those who perpetrated it walk free and are even lionized as martyrs and victims on the right.
You point to an account with over a million followers that is true, but in no way is a tasteless tweet undoubtedly seeking to drive engagement on the cesspool that is X comparable to a direct statement from the President and other elected officials like Nancy Mace who directly blamed the assassination on Democrats/Leftists without a suspect even named yet, let alone in custody. Even the account on the right calling for war is ran by someone who has been in the White House under this administration in an effort to control and push the Trump admins narratives. Was @vidsthatgohard ever afforded the same level of access or credibility by a Democrat?
Political violence is wrong and if it becomes broadly acceptable it will only lead to further unraveling of the discourse and stability of the country and the world at large. It is ignorant to attempt to blame one side fully for the climate we currently live in, but it serves no one to ignore the reality that the right time and again fails to make the same good faith efforts as their counterparts on the left.
Words matter, and it is possible to hold a paradox, conflicting words, in our hearts at the same time. I can be concerned, distraught about the human character flaw to advocate violence and commit murder, and at the same time not see the irony in the assassination of a man who believed a few deaths from gun violence as acceptable to guarantee the idol of Second Amendment rights. Charlie Kirk may have been a loving father and good friend in private, but I can't know that. All I can know is his vitriolic preaching and teaching that gave permission to the basest of human instincts to dehumanize. You are behind the curve on this one, Gabe. Your title is too late. This IS our future.
It’s possible to disagree with someone’s views without assuming the worst about their character. Charlie Kirk spoke boldly about tough issues—many didn’t agree with him—but boldness is not the same as hatred. He never advocated for violence, and it’s unfair to tie his defense of constitutional rights to the actions of violent individuals.
You say you can't know his heart—but many of us did. He was a devoted husband, father, and friend whose life was deeply shaped by his Christian faith. His love for God and people wasn’t a performance—it was the foundation of how he lived, led, and spoke. Reducing his entire legacy to a narrative of “dehumanization” ignores the countless lives he impacted through his conviction, compassion, and commitment to truth.
Truth and compassion aren’t mutually exclusive. We need more of both.
Sorry you lost me on this one. It's always interesting how non-marginalized people lecture others who have been subjected to lifetimes of daily violence, hate rhetoric and ultimately death, to just give peace a chance. Rest in peace? He never gave marginalized individuals a minute of peace when he walked this Earth.
I hear your pain, and I won’t dismiss it—violence, hatred, and injustice are real, and they deeply wound lives and communities. But I have to push back on the idea that Charlie Kirk never gave marginalized people “a minute of peace.” That’s simply not true.
He challenged systems and ideas—yes. But that’s not the same as hating people. His faith in Christ shaped his passion for truth and freedom, even when it made him unpopular. He believed every person is made in God’s image, and that conviction drove much of what he did.
It’s easy to judge someone based on headlines or soundbites. I didn’t know Charlie personally, but I followed his work closely—his podcasts, speeches, and writing. What I saw wasn’t a man filled with hate, but someone who spoke boldly from conviction, challenged ideas he believed were harmful, and cared deeply about faith, family, and freedom. He didn’t always say things perfectly, but he didn’t speak with malice. He spoke with purpose.
You don’t have to agree with him. But let’s not rewrite his life through a lens of bitterness. He’s gone now—and whether you loved him or didn’t understand him—I think we can all agree this world needs more real conversation and less hatred.
I feel like something missing from this current discourse on political violence, including this essay, is acknowledgment of the very real violence being carried out by those in power. Viewpoints are not just viewpoints when people’s human rights and physical safety is being actively compromised as a result of governmental action.
Calling upon people to temper their rhetoric is a nice and valid thing, but we absolutely cannot stop there. People, especially those with enormous power, should be called upon to temper their actions in this moment. Not because it will prevent things like this, but because it’s the right thing to do. I fear that all of this will be used as a justification not to.
Replying to you Sarah because I totally agree with this, but also wanted to make a point I felt was similar to yours. My own thought is, part of the reason political violence is becoming more normalized IS because of the normalization of mass shootings in schools, churches, theaters, you name it –– and our political leaders do carry responsibility for that. If we and our kids all face those kinds of threats of violence, why should our political leaders expect to somehow be immune to them? We're *all* at risk, and we deserve far better from our leadership.
If there could only be one article written in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, I would like it to be this one. Thanks Gabe for the balanced wisdom you brought to this.
I hope our luck isn't running out. Thank you for writing this so clearly, being forthright and plain, and for publishing this morning. Those who celebrate his death are the fringe and should be treated as such, just as those who celebrated the deaths of UHC CEO Brian Thompson; the two Israeli embassy employees Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim; and state legislator Melissa Hortman. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.
Sorry, while I do agree we should not be in a time where gun violence and violence against elected officials is the norm, your conclusions are off. Charlie Kirk said that gun violence was ok if it meant that the second amendment was protected. He said that he would not get on an airplane if it was being flown by a POC. What you thought were engaging debates were one sided trolling at best. Mostly he was hateful and harmful to marginalized communities and passed it off as just his "thoughts and opinions". That's not discourse. That's hurtful. And it's not ok.
I want to be clear: some of what you’ve said here is factually wrong, and the rest is heavily misrepresented.
Charlie never said he wouldn’t fly with a person of color. What he actually said—on a 2024 podcast—was: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” in the context of criticizing DEI hiring practices. Was that statement provocative? Yes. But it wasn’t a declaration of racism—it was a warning about the consequences of prioritizing identity over merit in high-stakes industries. Still, it’s important to quote people accurately if we’re going to have a real conversation.
As for gun violence: Charlie did say he believed the Second Amendment comes with real-world risks—including gun deaths—but saw that as a tragic tradeoff for protecting all other freedoms. He didn’t “celebrate” violence. He acknowledged the painful cost of liberty. That’s not the same thing.
It’s fair to disagree with Charlie’s views (I didn't always agree with him). But it’s not fair—or honest—to twist them into something they weren’t.
So, I got the essence but not the direct quote correct. Either way, he only was concerned about Black people being qualified. That’s racist and bigoted. Not that legacy kids get into colleges based on donations and “family”, but he was worried about skin color. And you thought this was a point to make? In no way does this make him a good person. In no way does this elevate his thought processes. In no way does this make him look better. No. He was the one going on and on about race and bigotry but we’re supposed to mourn this “thoughtful” person? Nope.
Hi Jordyn,
I hear your perspective, and I won’t pretend Charlie’s comment about pilots didn’t spark anger—it did. But to be fair, his point wasn’t about skin color being the issue. It was about his concern that DEI policies could lower standards in critical professions. You may see that as racist; I see it as a critique of policy, not people.
What I won’t do is reduce his entire life and legacy to one controversial soundbite. Charlie was a husband, father, and man of faith who cared deeply about America’s future. We don’t have to agree on his views to at least acknowledge that truth.
This is my last reply. And I hope you don’t reply anymore. The pilot comments were one of MANY that Charlie Kirk said that targeted POC, gays, and other minorities. It wasn’t one sound bite. He thought pieced based on the Bible that gays should be stoned to death. None of this was ok. And so, I will not revise history to make him some great man. No. He should not have died by gun violence. But me and others do not owe that man’s legacy anything more than the unvarnished truth. And that means the whole truth. Not the whitewashed truth that’s being presented now.
Hi Jordyn,
I’ll respect that this is your last reply, but I do want to clarify one thing: Charlie Kirk never called for gays to be stoned to death. That is simply not true. Critiquing policies or holding to biblical views of marriage is not the same as calling for violence.
We clearly see Charlie very differently. You are free to hold your perspective. For me, I will remember him as a husband, father, man of faith, and someone who believed deeply in dialogue—even with opponents.
This will be my last word here. I pray we all find a way to disagree without dehumanizing.
Gabe, you concluded your timely essay, "our leaders will only be as level-headed as the people that elect them." That is only true if we voters are presented with level headed candidates. Our candidates today are selected by the partisan fringes of the 2 major parties. They do not represent the sober, moderate middle that reflects leve headed values. Our process of candidate selection needs radical reform.
Lots of folks on here with varying opinions. I love all of you for expressing your opinions whether I agree with you or not. I'm so glad we have a forum such as this where we can all learn from one another. Even if we are only learning nuances. Gabe is such an amazing writer and thinker. He can put together an essay in a few hours which would take me a month. I think we can all agree with the idea that something is broken in this country. Let's try to remember all the things we have in common and embrace our country's greatest asset--its diversity.
Thanks for your kind words, Kenneth — I feel the same exact way: grateful to everyone coming to this space to share their thoughts, whether they agree with me or not.
The President of the US could certainly help in toning down the rhetoric but has down all he can to inflame the situation by blaming the left. Please acknowledge that that is true.
I am opposed to violence and I wish this event had not happened, and I wish that Charlie Kirk survived. But we have to push back on this "he did politics the right way thing" - for one, TPUSA published lists of academics and liberal activists that served as a source of death threats for ten years and counting against these people.
For another, his politics are explicitly exclusionary, that is, in his world, a whole lot of people would be *not allowed* to be part of the "political dialogue" - they'd be banned. Here's famous civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill responding to Ezra Klien's quote “Kirk & I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side of the continued possibility of American politics.” : "So it’s personal? B/c if you were a Black woman or transgender, Kirk would not imagine you having any role in the future of American politics." https://bsky.app/profile/sifill.bsky.social/post/3lykzhrmpec2f
Appreciate your thoughtful concern—and I want to respond clearly.
First, the Professor Watchlist wasn't created to incite violence. TPUSA launched it to expose what many conservative students saw as bias and hostility toward their views in higher education. Charlie repeatedly called for peaceful debate, not harassment. If bad actors used that list to threaten professors, that’s wrong—but that was never the intent, and Charlie never encouraged it. Accountability for ideas is not the same as incitement.
Second, calling Charlie’s politics “explicitly exclusionary” isn’t accurate. He debated anyone—regardless of race, gender, or identity. He strongly disagreed with DEI quotas, identity politics, and transgender medical practices, yes—but disagreement is not the same as exclusion or hate. He believed in a merit-based, truth-driven society grounded in Christian values—not one divided by labels. That’s not exclusion—it’s conviction.
Charlie’s vision of American politics included everyone—just not every idea. And there’s a difference.
Thank you so much for your calming words.