In a 2008 interview with The New York Times, then candidate Barack Obama stated, “I am like a Rorschach test.” He meant that people often projected their greatest hopes or worst fears onto him. That quote came to mind in the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk. The kind of person you believe Kirk to have been is primarily based on who you are.
While Kirk was not a politician per se, he impacted politics more than nearly anyone else in America. It was a mantle that he relished – and one from which he greatly profited. Kirk’s quick wit and (sometimes) easygoing style endeared him to people of all ages who shared his beliefs. Unfortunately, many of his beliefs were bigoted.
Two things can be, and in Kirk’s case very much are, true. His supporters point to his work with young people, whom he encouraged to get involved in politics. They also argue that Kirk’s words are “taken out of context” and call for a more nuanced understanding of his positions. However, much of what Kirk said is horrific – irrespective of the “context.”
For example, he said on his eponymous show in May 2023: “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” There is no nuanced context for such racial animus. Further, Kirk insisted that President Biden stole the 2020 election, a claim that has substantially contributed to mistrust of our democracy.
Even Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who has an affinity for Kirk, admitted that the young influencer, “said some very inflammatory things.”
Kirk proved the axiom that there can be a fine line between saints and sinners. Some would say that Charlie Kirk tiptoed that line; others would say that he obliterated it.
Kirk was also known for his devout Christian faith. Those who knew him best say that this faith was genuine. I don’t question that. However, one can be sincerely devout while concurrently espousing – and even participating in – evil. This includes slavery, segregation, and domestic terrorism.
For example, lynching of African Americans was most common in the Bible Belt as opposed to the more secular regions of the nation. In fact, research consistently shows a strong correlation between Christians and racism.
Thus, even as he encouraged young people to speak their minds and to embrace Jesus Christ, Kirk said extremely abhorrent things about Black people in general – and Black women in particular. Worse still, Kirk created a Professor Watchlist that was composed of academicians with whom he disagreed.
Subsequently, many of the professors on that list have been harassed and even doxed. Kirk’s supporters have not only threatened their livelihood; some have threatened their lives.
Earlier this week, a group of his supporters went viral for yelling “White man, fight back!” at a memorial service. (One wonders against whom they should “fight back” given that Kirk’s killer is a white man.) That, in a nutshell, is the complicated legacy of Charlie Kirk.
Still, millions of white Americans believe that Kirk should be canonized – figuratively if not literally. Some pastors are even calling for Christians to leave churches that haven’t memorialized Kirk.
This is fascinating to me. Why? There is not one Black person, living or dead, who has been lionized by white Americans after having said the types of things about white people that Kirk said about Black people.
In short, Charlie Kirk was a complex figure who charmed audiences (including some critics) one minute, only to make incredibly bigoted statements the next.
He could exude the gentility and earnestness of an old school revivalist. Yet, he also spoke in awful ways about anyone who was not white, Christian, conservative, and heteronormative.
Consider, for example, this statement from Kirk: “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.”
Importantly, the controversy regarding Kirk isn’t neatly distilled down to the typical “liberal vs. conservative” bifurcation. His fellow conservatives Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer frequently had negative things to say about him. Not surprisingly, such internecine battles are now being de-emphasized. By contrast, liberal Bill Maher openly mourns Kirk’s passing.
So, what now? We must shift from focusing on the words that were in Kirk’s mouth to combating the actions that his supporters are taking in his name.
America is experiencing the greatest assault on free speech in decades. Republican politicians at all levels are taking extreme measures, including threatening American citizens for expressing opinions that are critical of Charlie Kirk. I fear what such rhetoric portends for our future.
Larry Smith is a community leader. Contact him at larry@leaf-llc.com. For more editorials, click here.
