CONFLICT IN AFTERMATH OF KIRK KILLING. There are two epic battles going on in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. One is the battle to define Kirk. The other is the battle to define his killer.
There are significant voices trying to portray Kirk as a hateful, divisive figure. At the same time, there are voices trying to portray Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, as a confused, apolitical young man. In simplest terms, the point for both is to absolve Kirk’s political adversaries — Democrats, the Left, progressives, antifa, trans warriors, furries, whatever — of complicity in Kirk’s death. If Kirk was divisive and hateful, then he might have, in some portion, brought his terrible fate on himself. And if the suspect was indeed confused and apolitical, then he was not acting in any directed way on behalf of an ideology that might then bear some blame for the assassination.
Recommended Stories
- Gowdy's The Color of Death comes from experiences as a prosecutor
- The forgotten Trump assassination attempt
- For all the warm words, the special relationship is fading
It’s instant absolution for the Left: We didn’t do it, and even if we did, he kinda deserved it.
On the question of defining Kirk, it’s important to remember that a number of the people trashing him in death trashed him in life. In 2024, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) condemned Kirk’s “fascist rallies.” In 2023, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) called Kirk a “white supremacist propagandist.” In 2024, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called Kirk a “dangerous demagogue.” And in 2023, Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) called him a “racist grifter.”
After Sept. 10, some of Kirk’s most vociferous critics felt reluctant to keep it up in the immediate aftermath of his brutal murder. Others did not. “He was a reprehensible, hateful man,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) last week. “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” said Ocasio-Cortez. Another House Democrat, New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill, denounced what she called Kirk’s “vile” views, adding, “Charlie Kirk was advocating for a Christian nationalist government and to roll back the rights of women and black people.”
The fear among this group is that Kirk, in death, will become an inspirational figure, not just among the MAGA faithful but among a broad range of others searching for meaning in American life. Their response was to keep portraying Kirk as a hateful divider, even before his family had a chance to bury him. Better that than allow a more benign image of Kirk to take hold among possible swing voters.
Kirk’s supporters have plenty of resources with which to push back. Resources like, for example, the presidency. But the most powerful resource is Kirk’s life itself. The way he built and expanded Turning Point USA, the message he spread, and his political work in advocating conservative candidates will ensure that he is remembered.
As for Kirk’s accused assassin, Tyler Robinson, in the last few days, some significant media voices have worked hard to implant the idea that his action had nothing to do with politics. “The murder of Charlie Kirk was not a political act,” ABC News’s Jonathan Karl declared this weekend. Karl said Kirk’s murder has “been senselessly celebrated by some, a small minority, who didn’t like what Kirk stood for and thought it was somehow, therefore, justified. Celebrating or excusing violence is abhorrent. The murder of Charlie Kirk was not a political act. It was a gruesome crime.” In short, it was terrible, yes, but political, no.
Over the weekend, the New York Times published an essay, “Why Do We Think We Know Kirk’s Shooter’s Motive?”, suggesting that Robinson was compelled to kill by his immersion in online culture, not politics. Writer Matthew Walther looked at the messages the suspect etched into the .30-06 cartridges as he planned to kill Kirk, such as “hey fascist! CATCH” and “Bella ciao.” They came from video games and online talk, Walther said. “When it comes to a person like this — that is to say, a young man who reportedly spent a great deal of time holed up in his apartment playing video games and using niche social programs … I wonder if a legible political motive can neatly emerge from the fragmented, self-parodying, endlessly reflexive world of perpetually online discourse.” Robinson’s radicalization, Walther concluded, was likely “something post-political.”
Finally, the New York Times also published an article that, in essence, warned anyone against even suspecting that there was a trans connection in the Kirk killing. “This fixation on finding a transgender connection to Kirk’s horrific murder is as awful as it is dangerous,” wrote New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen. Robinson’s actual motive, she argued, is likely unknowable. “Robinson’s own explanation of his motives, should he ever offer it in full, would almost certainly be confused, contradictory, and highly specific to his own strange mind.”
Standing in opposition to this kind of analysis is the state of Utah’s charging document against Robinson, which contains long excerpts from the suspect’s online communications. In an exchange with his trans boyfriend, Robinson confessed to killing Kirk. When the boyfriend asked why, Robinson wrote, “I had enough of [Kirk’s] hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” Here is a longer portion of the prosecutors’ account of events:
Robinson’s mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left — becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning genders. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views.
In a conversation with his family before the shooting, according to prosecutors, Robinson mentioned the upcoming appearance of Kirk at Utah Valley University. After the shooting, in another talk with his parents, prosecutors say Robinson “implied” that he had killed Kirk. “When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there is too much evil and the guy [Kirk] spreads too much hate,” the charging document says.
That’s pretty clear, no matter how much op-ed writers try to confuse the issue. Just remember — there is a huge effort underway to change the way Americans think about both Charlie Kirk and about his killer. The best way to counter that is to rely on the clear facts of the case.