How to respond and not respond to a political assassination
It has been interesting (and at times very sad) to see how various people have responded to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was just 31 years old and was assassinated while he was literally engaged in debate with someone of different views to himself. If you don’t share the political views of someone who is assassinated, how should you respond?
The best responses are those who just condemn it without reservation as appalling for Kirk’s family and for the country. The best examples are former US Presidents:
Just spot on.
Also spot on.
The next type of responses are those that condemn the killing, but feel the need to mention how much they disagreed with the person killed. These responses are still okay, but sub-optimal. By mentioning you disagreed you are making it about you. No-one thinks condemning a political assassination means you agree with everything the person said or did.
Then you get the people who think it is a good idea to quote in detail all the bad things they think the other person ever said or did, who suggest he or she incited their own killing – but still weakly condemn it the end. These are pretty terrible people.
Take Sam Stubbs, the founder of Simplicity. His post is lacking is basic decency and empathy that I am so so glad I do not have any investments with Simplicity.
He says turn the violence but not the man. So basically he is saying it is great Charlie Kirk is dead, but not that he was murdered. If it had been say a car accident, then that would be wonderful. Kirk leaves behind two young children and a widow, and Stubbs says don’t mourn the man.
But it goes beyond Kirk. What Stubbs is basically saying is that if you you apply labels like racist, sexist and bigot to someone, then as a person their death is a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Now almost every person on the centre-right of politics has been called those labels at times, so one can only assume Stubbs has the same view towards many New Zealanders.
Stubbs has of course now had his PR team prepare a retraction, but I think everyone knows that he has shown us what his true views are, and his stunning lack of decency and empathy.
Finally you have the sociopaths like the President-Elect of the Oxford Union who actively celebrate the murder of people they politically disagree with. Beyond disgraceful.
If a political figure dies of natural causes, or in an accident, then it can be appropriate to say something like you are saddened by their death, despite your political differences. But when someone is assassinated due to their political views, your only response should be to condemn it with no buts, no ifs.
A related issue is judging motive when it comes to political assassinations or attempted assassinations. If a political figure is shot at, it is a reasonable starting point to assume the shooter is someone who disagrees with them politically, probably from the other side of the political spectrum.
But sometimes this is wrong. The first Trump shooter seemed to just want to shoot someone famous – he also looked at Biden, and didn’t seem to have a political motive. However the second Trump shooter was definitely targeting Trump directly because of Trump’s political views.
With Charlie Kirk though, the initial assumption that it was someone who hated his politics seems very likely by Occam’s razor. Kirk held no role in government.
Bizarrely, and on the flimsiest of evidence, left wing activists have argued that Kirk’s killer was actually a far right activist who thought Kirk wasn’t racist enough and was too pro-Israel. Russell Brown even said this scenario was “orders of magnitude” more likely than the possibility that a 22 year old raised in a conservative family, develops left wing beliefs. Orders of magnitude? Are you serious.
A sane take could be to say “Hey let’s not jump to conclusions over motive – he may have been a hard left extremist, but there is also a possibility he was a groyper”. That would be a reasonable stance. But Russell has said that it is almost beyond doubt he was a far right voyager, saying it is “orders of magnitude” more likely. Orders of magnitude means at least 100 times more likely.
The killer had “hey fascist catch” inscribed on one bullet. That seems a pretty good clue that he didn’t think Charlie Kirk was too left wing!
Fortunately the killer was taken alive (thanks to his father who talked him into it – an act which must have been incredibly difficult considering the likely death penalty that will be sought), so we may get to hear first hand his motivation. But frankly anyone who claims that it is orders of magnitude more likely he killed Charlie Kirk for being not rightwing enough is just embarrassing themselves.
Going back to the main theme of how to respond to Kirk’s assassination, the best responses I saw were from various state chapters of College Republicans College Democrats who put out joint press releases condemning it. As much as there is a natural anger to blame the “other” side, a show of unity is what is needed.
It would have, in hindsight, been a good move if the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate had done joint releases and/or joint press conferences.
I hope that at Kirk’s funeral, there are a decent number of senior Democrats in attendance. Maybe even that one of them speaks. Not because they agreed with his policies, or politics, but to condemn the idea that you assassinate people whose views you disagree with.