The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ezra Klein on Charlie Kirk
"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.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence.
That seems exactly right. So I assume I will now hear a widespread call for repeal of the 2nd amendment? After all, like the amendment expressly says, its purpose is to enable violence.
Martin, that remark is more stupid than your usual take on matters.
Even dumber than the earlier one about Kirk's death. He just can't help himself.
That is nonsense.
But in any case, there will be no repeal of the 2d Amendment in the current political environment.
Martin -
Your multitude of comments on the murder of Kirk are exposing your far left hatred of people that dont share your woke views.
Its despicable.
He's a Democrat Supremacist and should not have a platform to vomit his hate.
You are arguing against what Kirk stood for. You are no better than Martin.
Gross.
What? Charlie Kirk was famous for Change My Mind, and your best defense of him is nonsense?
Maybe this is a useful moment to take a step back and not try to turn every comment made by your political antagonists into the worst possible version?
Martin's comment doesn't express hate. You may not agree with it; you might find the attempt to use Kirk's death as a political argument crude. But jumping from there to "despicable" seems like the sort of ratcheting up of vitriol that hopefully this moment can help us move away from.
This is not Martin's only comment on the subject. The ones from the earlier post by Josh show that Martin isn't just a Nazi, he's a truly evil, despicable piece of shit.
Among other things in this empty bit of spite, this comment assumes that there are cool and good Nazis.
read all his comments
Same malika
In total - they reek of hate
Your defense of martin likewise doesnt speak well
Do you believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to silence speech through political assassination?
His name is Charlie Kirk.
Yes, his name is Charlie Kirk. So what, Frank?
His name is Charlie Kirk.
I'll bite. Van Zant or Lord Voldemort?
"its purpose is to enable violence"
Specifically, its purpose is to enable violence on the part of the law abiding citizenry. So that they can defend themselves from evil, unjustified violence.
You have a problem with this?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Who is the Militia supposed to shoot at while still being "law abiding"? Because I would think that fighting to defend your liberty against a tyrannical government involves lawbreaking almost by definition.
Dutch Nazis should refrain from talking about fighting against "tyrannical governments". We know what anti-semites like you want. You're not a piece of shit, you're a whole-ass shit.
So you're wholly unfamiliar with the thinking of the founders and concepts of natural law? Ok, cool.
Anyway, it's not limited to evil, unjustified violence by governments.
The point was to preserve the sovereignty of the States in the face of a Federal government.
This was done by preserving the independent, grass roots of the militia.
And this in turn was driven by the recent experience whereby the British tried to disarm American colonists to prevent rebellion. Hence the battles of Lexington and Concord.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
Why is this so hard?
The Congress shall have power to ...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The militia serves multiple purposes.
As to "tyrannical government involves lawbreaking almost by definition," the Declaration of Independence argues that there is a right to use violence as a matter of self-defense against tyranny.
the amendment expressly says, its purpose is to enable violence.
The amendment expressly says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, which would logically mean that they sometimes would have to use them. That would, in that sense, enable violence, though usual goal is to avoid violence.
The repeal of the 2A, however, would not stop violence. The government would retain the power to protect the public, including using violence as necessary. The public at large would also have the right to self-defense, including violently in extreme cases.
Arguably, a repeal of the 2A would help if it led to a major reduction in guns in this country and a corresponding drop in violence. Without more, however, including given state constitutional protections, I'm not sure how much it would do.
To toss it in, the First Amendment protects the right to "peacefully" assemble. An argument can be made that would limit the use of guns in public places.
Even I disagree with Martinned, but the number of you that are failing his obvious test is fucking incredible.
A lack of self awareness is a virtue within MAGA, but makes a lot of you look really slow on the uptake to everyone else.
Sacastro -
yes - your lack of self awareness is telling
I would instead say that his lack of self awareness is (a key part of his) trolling.
I don't think the possibility that this is a false flag operation in which he was murdered by the Trump administration can be ruled out, and before you dismiss that as conspiracy theory nuttery, hear me out:
1. This was a professional hit. The gunman knew what he was doing. He was able to fire off a single shot that hit Kirk in the neck from a distance and then disappear.
2. Who benefits? Not the left, which is immediately being tarred with the brush of domestic terrorism. This murder far and away advantages the right. Further, if the left were engaging in targeted political assassinations, there are other far better targets than Kirk. Just knocking out a half dozen Republican members of Congress, for example, would hand control of Congress to the Democrats. So why Kirk?
3. Trump is immediately using this to call for retribution against the "radical left". This is sounding more and more like Hitler burning the Reichstag. Further, Trump isn't even hiding his fascist tendencies at this point; he wants to be a strongman dictator. So this may be the excuse he's been waiting for.
4. Trump is already sending the military into American cities on the pretext of needing to control crime. So he's already set the precedent for a military takeover.
5. Finally, we know that Trump has no loyalty to anyone except himself. Does anyone seriously question that if Trump believed Kirk were more useful dead than alive, that he'd give the order without a second thought?
I hope I am mistaken. I hope that when the killer is caught there is a more benign explanation than what I've just proposed. But as of now, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Krychek returns from the pits of bluesky with this hot BlueAnon take.
If it was a governmental action it was Mossad. He feared that the Israeli's would kill him and he has been more vocal against them lately.
Hitting someone from 200 yards away is not an unusual feat.
It’s not, but I usually like to get a little closer. (I’m kidding)
Krych -
There are lot of delusional conspiracy theories
Your conspiracy is just despicable
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.
For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.
How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.
Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.
The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?
Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.
That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.
Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.
Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.
A fine op-ed by Klein. He sees the event in just the right way. Either we are all safe to express or opinions, or none of us us are.
Where was he speaking out against the "speech is violence" crowd? Fuck him and his convenient call for unity.
Democrat Supremacists are monsters.
You calling for deplatforming political speakers, no matter how vile, is no different from Democrats doing the same.
SGT,
Not every moment is a time for polemics.
Principles which can be discarded at will are not principles.
Change my mind.
How will your principles save you from the violence from Democrat Supremacists?
They will cheer your death the same way they are cheering Charlie's. Another principled man.
Why do you cheer Charlie Kirk, rant about his death, and reject what he stood for?
Change my mind.
Why do I have to share every belief and clothe myself in Charlie Kirk's principles?
Do you? Do you share every one of Charlie's beliefs?
It's what he's most famous for. You don't have much use for him if you reject that. His killing seems to just be a handy peg for your forthy fulminations.
He's most famous for requiring all of his supporters to agree with every belief his? Or are you specifically only talking about his belief that we need to talk things out?
The world has changed. Talking to people who want to kill you or would cheer your death doesn't work out that well for you.
So you leftists have pushed the demonization and dehumanization of conservatives for decades, even excusing multiple other violent attempts but now it's too much and totally not on you? No, this is exactly what you have been demanding and cheerleading for your entire misbegotten lives.
You assume facts not in evidence.
And here Gaslightr0 tries to pretend the Democrat Supremacists haven't been calling us Nazi's for a decade now.
Are you arguing that the gunman lacked agency? And do you think it's only the left doing the demonising and dehumanising?
I have a caveat to the comment that "Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way." His effectiveness is quite clear. He shows how to create a successful movement.
And, yes, it is quite clear that it should not lead to violence. It is appreciated that this has broadly been stated.
Klein listed multiple acts of violence against liberals and conservatives, showing how it is a danger in today's political environment. Trump's comments about "left-wing" violence are troubling. It is a selective concern, and we don't even know the motivation of the shooter yet. See also the 1/6 pardons.
However, there were some problems with how Kirk "practiced politics." His provocative remarks aided and abetted violence. Many people cited examples on social media yesterday, while over and over again also underlining how wrong his death was.
That is not how politics should be practiced, and Newsom's comments were correctly criticized on that front.
His name is Charlie Kirk.
Frank, notice how to these people all those leaks of DoD and DOJ slides where they were declaring White conservatives to be the greatest threat to the homeland, and all that governmental action against conservatives never got a peep from these people?
Now they're worried about Trump?
Fuck these Democrat Supremacists. No Justice, No Peace.
No leaked slides needed, Biden shouted the same things in his speeches.
You're right. I had forgotten about that awful vile speech of Biden's.
IIRC, every Democrat Supremacist here cheered for it.
Sick.
"His provocative remarks aided and abetted violence."
I frankly don't care. Nobody can control how others respond to their remarks, so the most you can demand of somebody is that they not advocate violence. And Kirk did not, so far as I have ever heard.
You're advocating a standard nobody can meet.
This is their "your speech is violence" routine to justify their violence against us.
Something needs to be done about this ideology, it's festering.
I frankly don't care. Nobody can control how others respond to their remarks
The law says otherwise, from fighting words to incitement of lawless action to defamation.
Seems to me you're creating excuses for bad things.
What were the fighting words Kirk used yesterday?
"There are only two genders" "Jesus is Lord" "The government should be small" "People have a right to bare arms" "illegal immigration is bad"
This is the most revealing comment made today.
Sarcastr0 is clearly and directly assigning blame for Democrat Supremacist violence and murder on the speaker.
He probably also blames women who get raped for dressing like a whore.
Wow. Civilly disagreeing with somebody is the equivalent of "fighting words" or incitement of crime?
That's not what you said. I quoted what you said. It wasn't about civil disagreement.
Your comment above sounds like you're rationalizing calls to violence.
How do words cause violence?
"His provocative remarks aided and abetted violence."
No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.
Are you saying I'm hated for speaking the truth?
I grant I disagree with various things he said, including his take on Martin Luther King Jr., which is now a bit ironic, since people want to treat him as a martyr "akin" to him. I would think he would find that troubling, given some of his remarks about that guy.
Yes.
Showing up in the belly of the beast and challenging their beliefs is quite provocative, to be sure.
But apparently the only violence that was aided and abetted was from those on the left. The man literally said "debate me".
And because the left tried, and failed, to defeat him in the arena of ideas, they just called him a nazi and murdered him instead.
His videos engaging leftist students, professors, and others clearly showed why the left hated him so much. He was effective at championing his world view and showing how absolutely shallow the left is and their inability to take his criticism.
But, yeah, that's "not how politics should be practiced".
"His provocative remarks aided and abetted violence. "
Joe,
would you care to prove that in front of a judge and jury?
No, especially if I had to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Statements don't have to meet the standard necessary to put people in jail or even to get a large monetary reward to be true.
Holocaust deniers can be hard to refute on the level, even though Deborah Lipstadt managed to do so.
Fuck off you vile Marxist cunt. Name specifically which remarks "aided and abetted violence" because you'll be hard pressed to do so that doesn't justify executing you for worse. You just lie and demand your delusional lies be taken for truth. Even here you whine about protesters jailed with grotesquely large sentences and a system that turned on them while justifying literal fucking murder.
No calls for unity from Democrat Supremacists or their enablers should be given a platform.
They are disingenuous, convenient, and insincere. There is a video floating around of the TMZ newsroom when they heard the news about Charlie Kirks assassination where a bunch of cheers rang out.
There can be no unity with Democrat Supremacist demons.
Your stance is the mirror of the Democrats you hate. You are them.
How will your principles save you from Democrat Supremacy?
How do you square your hatred of what Charlie Kirk stood for with your hatred of Charlie Kirk's presumed killer's presumed motives (he hasn't been caught yet)?
You can't. You are a hypocrite.
Change my mind.
You keep saying "Change my mind" as if that's some powerful incantation that will compel me to act in the way you wish.
Why?
Why do you demand I clothe myself in every one of Charlie's principles while staying utterly silent at all the Democrat Supremacy excusing making being done?
Why are you silent about the people in this forum who have Charlie's blood on their hands?
What an odd thing to do.
Why do you cloak your hatred in Charlie Kirk's death when you despise what he stood for?
I don't despise what he stood for. It's noble. However, I am not a rigid, dogmatic, absolutist.
I can believe in the principle that exchanging ideas is the best way to solve problems while also putting a muzzle on a deadly pit bull when lives are stake, like they are now in the face of Democrat Supremacy.
And I am being unfair to pit bulls in that example.
Nick Freitas had some worthwhile thoughts:
"I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I'm supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people.
But we aren't "one people" are we?
The truth is we haven't been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was.
We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end. . . ..
It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose."
https://x.com/NickJFreitas/status/1965927877926432868
Wow. That guy seems like a real asshole. Also notable that he didn't care when Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed. Could find no references to it on his feed. He honestly seems excited for the prospect of violence. He's going to rewatch a bloody and violent killing when he's feeling down? That's extremely unhealthy and disturbing and is practically a fetish. This guy should not be near political power.
That's a cheery thought.
If accurate, the authoritarians are finally coming out and saying it.
99.99 percent of people in this country anywhere on the political spectrum wouldn't kill someone because they disagreed with their politics. The fact that a handful of nutcases would doesn't mean all of us are "At war." I do not agree with Freitas.
That's not what the surveys of Democrat Supremacists are saying.
New survey reveals disturbing trend in support of political violence
"Some 38% of the total respondents said it would be "somewhat justified" to murder President Trump, while 31% said the same about Elon Musk. However, for those self-identifying in that group who were more left-leaning, those numbers grew to 48% and 55%, respectively."
"The survey also looked at support for destroying Tesla dealerships, with 39% of all respondents saying it's partially acceptable and 57% of those left of center saying the same thing. "
ML once again shows he aches for secession.
News at 11.
Unfortunately he is quoting a VA State Delegate who feels the same way
Why do you think those are worthwhile thoughts? Despite an increase in polarization, most people identify more strongly as Americans than Republicans or Democrats. Most people who don't spend all of their time engaged in political debate don't see their neighbors who vote differently as enemies; many people don't even see much of a practical difference between the two parties. And they're probably right: outside of a handful of charged topics, there's probably vastly more agreement than disagreement across the country.
If your political identity is such that you think its incompatible with civil coexistence with your fellow countrymen, maybe this is a moment to reconsider your politics.
The absolute gall of this comment in light of what we've been living through since Obama.
The absolute gall. Have you no shame?
How does that compare with your absolute gall in defending Charlie Kirk while rejecting what he stood for? Have you no shame?
Is your entire catalog of beliefs 100% in alignment with Charlie Kirk's?
If not, then well aren't you a filthy hypocrite and shouldn't you be too ashamed to criticize me?
Why do you pretend so much outrage over Charlie Kirk's death when you don't give a fig about what he stood for?
I don't see you applying the same standard to Ezra.
Weird.
I appreciate your principled efforts here, I really do. But they're misapplied to this guy.
A while ago he said he's just here to shitpost, and doesn't mean anything he says:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/23/lets-go-brandon-t-shirts-can-be-barred-from-middle-school-on-grounds-of-vulgarity/?comments=true#comment-10698877
Be not bothered by him as though his posts reflect thought or even sincere feeling. He's just noise.
lmao "buttering up your mom" that's hilarious what other awesome quotes have you saved to your diary? Maybe put on a little Best Hits to liven up the joint?
The best, short but free-standing, most useful, most necessary, appropriate to the day of a political assassination view I’ve read, is from the Bulwark’s Jonathon V. Last. It puts forward three main ideas, beginning with:
The second point may be the most important:
The third is, personally (as in directed to me), perhaps the most necessary. The strongly Catholic JVL phrases it in the language of prayer, which is fine for the part he directs to those believing in such comforts. But for the part below, I replace "prayer" with 'take what action you can, do what you can do, to...'
As I said, this is probably as far as one should go on the day of such an act, such "an attack on our civic compact." But today, the day after, it is not too early to start planning and advocating for "take what action you can, do what you can do." My first action, little as it is, is to send this piece and my views to my mostly far-right-wing, mostly Trump-supporting extended Idaho family (I do that only rarely and have had the occasional success in diverting some from a dark path parroted daily by many here). I’d be grateful for suggestions on other, real, potentially useful actions an individual can take.
I mentioned the JVL piece as both perceptive and thoughtful, but realize most of what I quoted was perception, leaving out much of the thoughtfulness. The short piece is well worth reading:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk
Three actions:
- If you are in the presence of a young black male, keep your head on a swivel and stay armed, stay present.
- If you are in the presence of any other Democrat Supremacist, stay alert, protect your kids, and be prepared to defend your life and liberty with all you have.
- Take the time to collect and report Democrat Supremacists to their workplace. A website has already been stood up to hold these demons accountable. https://www.charliesmurderers.com