Modern America has been one of constant shock: decades of war, economic turmoil, covid lockdowns, contested elections, rising political escalation, and resulting political violence. Despite this contemporary backdrop, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a moment that stands apart in the way that singular death - with a face, a family, a story, a particular context - is always easier to process than a broader event, no matter how horrible.
Kirk was a 31-year-old husband, a young father, and perhaps America’s leading “political influencer” of an age defined by the craft. His traditional calling card, the one that brought him to the Grand Valley State University campus, was characterized by debate and dialogue that was dismissed by enemies on the left as cheap stunts and criticized by some on the right for being corny. Regardless of one’s opinions on Kirk’s individual views, it was a throwback to the romantic notions of persuasion and conversation still holding value when so many voices advocated for political domination and conquest.
It was precisely Kirk’s desire to engage with those he disagreed with that put him in the path of a killer bullet. This event will forever shape how generations of Americans view our politicized society.
This being the age of social media, the response has been predictable. Calls for vengeance and retribution among parts of the Online Right that have long viewed an unwillingness to fully utilize the power of the state as a weakness for their political tribe. Celebrations from growing parts of the Online Left that have long abandoned the facade of human decency. It is easy to focus on these extremes and to wave away the toxicity of our modern society as pressures arising from fringe outsiders.
The reality is something far more sinister.
In 1958, Ludwig von Mises addressed the Mont Pelerin Society on the topic of language and the role it played in shaping the masses. Referencing the work of Victor Klemperer on the language of the Third Reich, Mises discussed how the evolution of popular language in Germany shaped the fundamental views of large portions of the population that allowed for the consolidation of political power and the rationalization for state action. He feared that the popular language being adopted by the economics profession of his time, including fellow MPS members, was framing the popular understanding of economic phenomena in a way that would ensure gradual state control over the economy. Once again, Mises proved prophetic.
Similarly, our modern society is shaped by the popular politicalization of language - not simply by online fringe communities - but by leading institutions in this country, resulting in the dehumanization of figures like Charlie Kirk, sowing the seeds for the sort of horrific violence that social media users will not be able to unsee.
This was on full display on MSNBC, which, while infamous for its partisan bias, remains a “mainstream outlet” for political commentary far away from the darkest corners of left-wing online circles. Matthew Dowd, a political pundit whose claim to fame includes consulting work for Bush-Cheney campaigns, described Kirk as someone who “constantly [pushes] this sort of hate speech, aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which often then to hateful actions.”
MSNBC later fired Dowd, but the basic sentiments expressed were not limited to him on the network’s broadcast. Other institutional left outlets, such as The New Republic, immediately labeled Kirk a “troll”. The Guardian accused Kirk mourners of ignoring his own “incendiary rhetoric.” While open celebration of Kirk’s death may be appropriately viewed as a view limited to radicals, rationalizing his own complicity in fermenting the soil for political violence is not.
This gradual normalization of political violence on the left is documented beyond selective online anecdotes. Earlier this year, a study found that around half of “left-of-center” respondents would find the assassination of Donald Trump or Elon Musk “somewhat justified.”
While troubling, this should not be surprising. After all, America’s intellectual culture, particularly in universities and colleges, has conflated the notion of language and violence to an extent where 40 percent of college students have been found to believe violence to be a justifiable response to speech, up to and including death. Add to that the growing sphere of what constitutes “hate speech”, and you have a cultural environment, promoted by leading institutions - often subsidized by government dollars - to normalize the sort of political violence we have witnessed.
This is not the result of radicalization emerging from lost souls spiralling in fringe online circles, but rather a coordinated, systemized, and subsidized shift from elite circles.
The question facing us now is how a society peacefully responds to this fundamental breakdown of America’s traditional civic virtues. A practical society would recognize the de-escalatory virtues of political decentralization and reigning in the modern creation of democracy as conquest.
Unfortunately, America today seems far from a practical society.