If you think radicalization is a one-sided issue, you’re part of the problem
I didn’t know a lot about Charlie Kirk before last week. I knew he was a young (to me) MAGA-verse star and that we likely disagreed on a whole lot of things. So what? I disagree with so many folks on both ends of the political spectrum that the only person I usually do agree with is the man in the mirror — and even he and I agree only about 63 percent of the time.
Because Charlie Kirk never came to my front door to debate — unlike some folks who immediately regretted that decision — he didn’t occupy space in my head. Dude, I’m surrounded by right-wingers where I live. I ain’t got time to worry about ’em — or about the left-wingers … if there are any around me. Granted, the left-wingers are harder to spot in my neck of the woods because they don’t have quite as many flags and trucker hats as their counterparts.
I respected, though, that he wasn’t afraid to go into the lion’s den to debate, well, usually confused kitty cats. I respected that he was no fan of cancel culture, even when people said things that make folks uncomfortable and, yes, even when folks said or wrote things that are inappropriate, even repulsive — as some have in the wake of the shooting.
One thing I do not respect, however, is dishonest debate. Charlie Kirk encountered that often on college campuses. If folks couldn’t argue with him, they tried to shout him down or resort to insults in lieu of arguments. Watch his appearance on Bill Maher’s “Club Random” podcast a few months ago for a lesson in how two people who disagree most of the time can have an engaging and enlightening discussion.
I’ve also seen people on the right contort themselves to propagate the notion that only they are under attack. Only they love America. They bring up conspiracy theories about how attacks against the left were really perpetrated by the left much the same way they are convinced January 6 was either a typical tourist day at the Capitol or a bunch of Antifa folks. That’s dishonest debate, and there is no point in engaging such folks — something I have to remind myself from time to time, particularly with friends and people I know.
In the wake of last week’s killing, many people were heartbroken, angry, vengeful, and more. And they have every right to those reactions. He was a father and a husband. And no matter what views he espoused, he should have been able to express them without fear of being gunned down. Unfortunately, our nation is only becoming more polarized, more siloed and more easily triggered while also becoming less open-minded and even less able to reason.
Yet, our president, in a moment where he could have risen above the fray, instead chose to dive in, leverage the moment, and condemn just one side for political violence. He sat behind the resolute desk in his gold-plated Oval Office and told the nation that this is a problem of the radical left. He brought up attacks on conservatives, including the assassination attempt — yes, it was real, left-wingers — on himself and going all the way back to the politically motivated shooting of Steve Scalise but, of course, not going back to the politically motivated shooting of Gabby Giffords that seemed to launch the more recent spate of political violence (which does go back a few centuries).
He did this without mentioning the assassination of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband (and the shooting of two others) on Trump’s birthday in June, the 2022 attack on Pelosi, the 2018 pipe bomb mailings to multiple Democratic officials by a Trumper, the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the attack on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s family and more.
He condemns folks on the left for using inflammatory terms like “facist” while he uses terms like “commie.” He points out that leftists will knee-jerk use terms like “racist” for anyone they disagree with, while he uses terms like “traitors” for people just doing their jobs. He calls journalists “the enemy of the people” while simultaneously feeding people lies that the 2020 election was “rigged” and that “there’s no inflation.” He fires scorekeepers when he doesn’t like the numbers, calling them rigged, too. He has re-tweeted and re-truthed countless violent, inciteful and/or false memes and posts.
Rhetoric can indeed have consequences, as has rightfully been pointed out in recent days. Folks on the left and right should tone it down. The governor of Utah has offered some sage advice in the wake of this event, even as some (again, on both sides) are trying to capitalize upon the tragedy. And if you can’t see that the dangerous rhetoric and actual violence is coming from both extremes, then you’re probably on one of the extremes or getting your information — or affirmation — from inside a partisan bubble.
There was much speculation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. He must’ve been radicalized by his university, some said, before we found out he went to Utah State for only one semester. That hardly explained how a kid from a Republican, gun-loving family could turn on a dime … although the gun-loving part seems to be a common them among many of these shooters, left or right. (I’m a gun owner, but a love of guns is the red flag, y’all … dang near every time.) Some assumed he was transgender because trans folks are clearly deadly after having committed 0.11 percent of mass shootings in America — or as some see that number, pretty much all of them, so we must take their guns. (Just don’t touch the guns of the 97 percent of straight dudes who actually commit the majority of mass shootings.)
It’s quite possible that the inflammatory rhetoric at work here is the constant drumbeat of anti-trans hate from the right, and it may have played a role in the shooter’s radicalization. He reportedly had a romantic relationship with his roommate, a male said to be considering transitioning to female. I can’t confirm that, but if he did have feelings for someone he thought was under attack, it could have been a reason for the shooting — not an excuse, mind you, so don’t hyperventilate. But there’s a reason behind every decision — right or wrong, good or evil. When folks feel like the world is coming after them or for people they care about at a time of emotional distress and confusion, they may not take that very well.
And if some Christians would focus a little more on compassion and a little less on condemnation, that kind of rhetoric might even be helpful. It certainly would not be a cure-all, but it could prevent one of these tragedies.
For my part, I’ll tone down some of my rhetoric, though I’ve never espoused violence. But I will never stop expressing my views when I see America embrace authoritarian tactics or look a little too much like Gilead for my liking. If you choose to go along to get along and not rock the boat, that’s up to you. I just find it weak to stay silent in the face of what I consider wrongdoing or dishonesty. Folks have tried to cancel me, many times, for my opinions, and I’m sure they’ll succeed eventually. They’ve occasionally come close over the past 30 years. But I refuse to be silenced. For me to sit down and shut up would be an insult to those who believe in free speech and civil discourse …
Including Charlie Kirk.
What do you think about this?