So much for reacting to violence by doubling down on civility: "Let us be unsentimental about the nature of the enemy. Leftism is not merely a rival policy set or an alternate party program. Leftism is a mental illness." This effort to pathologize political differences is not constructive or even broadly accurate. Defining fellow American political opponents as "the enemy" weakens us and divides us against our real enemies in China, Russia, Iran and elsewhere.
The time and heart-felt sentiments behind this article are appreciated.
I live in Provo, UT - just a few miles from the campus of UVU, where Charlie Kirk lost his life so violently. And, during a school year in which my beloved daughter is applying early decision to Harvard in an effort to extend our family's 3-generation Harvard legacy, I am particularly interested to read thoughts, opinions, and sentiments from my college alma mater.
After reading this piece, I turned to the website of the Harvard Crimson to seek out other points of view on this week's events. Not finding a single Crimson article on the Charlie Kirk assassination is somewhat disturbing. That the Crimson has not published a piece on Charlie Kirk feels to me like a great insult. The event has shaken me to my core, like an earthquake, and yet the Crimson does not even mention it.
Is this the cold, dark heart of crimson communism turning a blind eye to the suffering of its opponents? Is this a deliberate effort by leftists to downplay the impact of the assassination on the modern body politic in an effort to prevent migration of liberals to the conservative camp? Or, is this an artifact of the careless planning of a liberal student-author who is simply running late in submitting their contribution to the Crimson?
I'm not sure, but from what I have been reading, there are more than a few Americans who are actually celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. So, the absence of an article from the Crimson is certainly eyebrow raising.
The best revenge that we can get for Charlie Kirk and his family is to turn this week's tragic events into a big win for the Republican Party in next year's mid-terms. A mass migration of liberal students to the conservative ballot next year is the grand triumph that Charlie Kirk would want. This kind of shift in student voting patterns is often noted as one of Ronald Reagan's greatest victories in the 1980s, and I think it would be counted as a great conservative victory in 2026 as well, both for Donald Trump and for Charlie Kirk.
But, if there is to be such a migration, it will be founded on a desire for peaceful political discourse, not on a desire for violent revenge. It will be the students' repudiation, en bloc, of left wing violence that propels such a shift in student voting patterns next year.
If they don't repudiate it. If they embrace it. Then all bets are off, and the second amendment will take on a much greater role than the first.
Many people on the Left have claimed that people such as President Trump or Charlie Kirk want to kill people of their identity. That is incorrect, and that is what feeds the drive to shoot people like Trump and Kirk.
We should call out that incitement. Charlie Kirk should be remembered as the one who would reason with anyone. Someone should endow a prize for civil engagement in his name.
Charlie Kirk, should not have died. Political violence like this is senseless and horrific. Let's be clear though, while intense aggressive rhetoric and politically violent acts have risen on both the Left and the Right data from non-partisan sources (ADL, Global Terrorism Database, U.S. Extremist Crime Database) shows that right-wing extremism is responsible for the majority of political violence fatalities. Calling the Left the "enemy", saying we are "at war", and that Leftism is a "mental illness" is exactly the kind-of rhetoric that puts people down the path of thinking about violent actions as a viable solution to deal with people who disagree with them. It does NOT make us a better nation.
Thank you for this well written memorial. I'm heart- broken & pissed.
Well said, men. I'm proud to have met you.
So much for reacting to violence by doubling down on civility: "Let us be unsentimental about the nature of the enemy. Leftism is not merely a rival policy set or an alternate party program. Leftism is a mental illness." This effort to pathologize political differences is not constructive or even broadly accurate. Defining fellow American political opponents as "the enemy" weakens us and divides us against our real enemies in China, Russia, Iran and elsewhere.
The time and heart-felt sentiments behind this article are appreciated.
I live in Provo, UT - just a few miles from the campus of UVU, where Charlie Kirk lost his life so violently. And, during a school year in which my beloved daughter is applying early decision to Harvard in an effort to extend our family's 3-generation Harvard legacy, I am particularly interested to read thoughts, opinions, and sentiments from my college alma mater.
After reading this piece, I turned to the website of the Harvard Crimson to seek out other points of view on this week's events. Not finding a single Crimson article on the Charlie Kirk assassination is somewhat disturbing. That the Crimson has not published a piece on Charlie Kirk feels to me like a great insult. The event has shaken me to my core, like an earthquake, and yet the Crimson does not even mention it.
Is this the cold, dark heart of crimson communism turning a blind eye to the suffering of its opponents? Is this a deliberate effort by leftists to downplay the impact of the assassination on the modern body politic in an effort to prevent migration of liberals to the conservative camp? Or, is this an artifact of the careless planning of a liberal student-author who is simply running late in submitting their contribution to the Crimson?
I'm not sure, but from what I have been reading, there are more than a few Americans who are actually celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. So, the absence of an article from the Crimson is certainly eyebrow raising.
The best revenge that we can get for Charlie Kirk and his family is to turn this week's tragic events into a big win for the Republican Party in next year's mid-terms. A mass migration of liberal students to the conservative ballot next year is the grand triumph that Charlie Kirk would want. This kind of shift in student voting patterns is often noted as one of Ronald Reagan's greatest victories in the 1980s, and I think it would be counted as a great conservative victory in 2026 as well, both for Donald Trump and for Charlie Kirk.
But, if there is to be such a migration, it will be founded on a desire for peaceful political discourse, not on a desire for violent revenge. It will be the students' repudiation, en bloc, of left wing violence that propels such a shift in student voting patterns next year.
If they don't repudiate it. If they embrace it. Then all bets are off, and the second amendment will take on a much greater role than the first.
Many people on the Left have claimed that people such as President Trump or Charlie Kirk want to kill people of their identity. That is incorrect, and that is what feeds the drive to shoot people like Trump and Kirk.
We should call out that incitement. Charlie Kirk should be remembered as the one who would reason with anyone. Someone should endow a prize for civil engagement in his name.
Charlie Kirk, should not have died. Political violence like this is senseless and horrific. Let's be clear though, while intense aggressive rhetoric and politically violent acts have risen on both the Left and the Right data from non-partisan sources (ADL, Global Terrorism Database, U.S. Extremist Crime Database) shows that right-wing extremism is responsible for the majority of political violence fatalities. Calling the Left the "enemy", saying we are "at war", and that Leftism is a "mental illness" is exactly the kind-of rhetoric that puts people down the path of thinking about violent actions as a viable solution to deal with people who disagree with them. It does NOT make us a better nation.