The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ezra Klein on Charlie Kirk (Updated)
"Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way"
From Ezra Klein's column in today's New York Times:
The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything. Charlie Kirk — and his family — just lost everything. As a country, we came a step closer to losing everything, too. . . .
You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era's most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.
That was not all Kirk's doing, but he was central in laying the groundwork for it. I did not know Kirk and I am not the right person to eulogize him. But I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness. In the inaugural episode of his podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California hosted Kirk, admitting that his son was a huge fan. What a testament to Kirk's project. . . .
Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended through bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine, and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.
As they say, read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Most of the critical responses to Klein's piece I've seen focus on the substance of Kirk's politics. In this regard I think they miss the point. That said, there is an argument that insofar as Kirk embraced and advanced an illiberal agenda that threatens democracy and (ultimately) the civic discourse in which Kirk was participating. This piece by Nick Catoggio makes that point. I am unconvinced--for the same reason I reject the argument that one need not tolerate the intolerant--but it is a serious view.
