"Let's Not White-Wash Charlie Kirk's Legacy" - A Response

The article presented itself as moderate; it was not celebrating Kirk's death but informing me why (all things considered) he was a horrible person and heavily implying that we really shouldn't be grieving Kirk too strongly.

Why did it bother me so much? The author clearly condemned the assassination, even calling it tragic! But we must remember that Kirk was, the article quickly emphasized, an awful person. He apparently hated LGBTQ people, promoted violence against minorities, spewed racist ideas, and promoted harmful policies. So, the outlandish grief is just unnecessary. The essay thus condemned the violence but highlighted the many problems in the man. I've seen several of my left-wing friends post similar articles, clearly feeling themselves to be taking a "nuanced" position.

The problem is that I know what Kirk actually says and does. I've been seeing videos of Kirk pop into my feed for years. I never followed him, but he has been in public life for a long time, and over that time, I've gained a solid understanding of his views.

1. He loves LGBTQ people; he just disagrees with their sexual ethics.

2. He explicitly and consistently condemns violence.

3. He actively condemns and distances himself from the white nationalists and other racists

4. He pursued the policies he did because he believed (rightly or wrongly) they would make people's lives better.

5. He enjoyed talking to people who disagreed with him and continuously gave them a platform to engage with him.

6. He cared deeply about his relationship to Jesus Christ.

And here's the rub: when I listened to Kirk's actual words (as opposed to what other people accused him of saying), I tended to agree with much of what he said. There were always quibbles I had with how he presented some issues. But for the most part, he was representing me out there, as well as most of the people I care about. Kirk was a solid moderate on the right who was actively holding the more radical fringes back. He provided a positive path forward for conservative young people, a path that didn't end in the idiotic degeneracy of Andrew Tate or Nick Fuentes. He represents roughly a third to one half of the country, including me and most of the people I love. To be "nuanced" in response to his murder informs me how you would respond to my murder, or to the murder of people I love: You would write or share an article saying that, while murder is of course wrong, this was the murder of an evil, hateful, racist, bigoted homophobe and so we don't need to grieve THAT much.

Sometimes being "nuanced" is morally perverse. If a child gets abducted, a "nuanced" response is deeply inappropriate. If a woman gets raped, a "nuanced" response is an accommodation to evil. And when a person gets murdered for honestly sharing his beliefs, a "nuanced" response is a deep moral failure. The more extreme posts are, surprisingly, easier to ignore. Where you see someone mocking or rejoicing, there you know you have seen evil and can move on. But many on the left apparently think it's a "nuanced" position to respond to cold-blooded murder by falsely labeling the victim (and all of us with him) as an evil, hateful, bigoted, racist, violent homophobe. That's the "moderate" view on the left, and it brings me to despair for the future of our nation. John 15:18's warning cuts deep when you deeply love your country.

And yet there is reason for hope. I've spent several days this past week on a college campus, having dozens of spiritual conversations with anyone who stops to talk. And the conversations have been amazing, even when about the most controversial topics. I've heard students whispering about the assassination as I walk through the halls. They've grown up seeing reels of Kirk; they know what he said and believed. And the propagandistic slander largely hasn't worked on them. Most don't AGREE with Kirk, but they know he's not a crazy radical, and they know that his whole shtick is just to have public conversations. They've seen the video of him being murdered in front of his wife and children. The overwhelming (though not universal) response from these students has been a complete, unequivocal condemnation of his murder.

And this matches with something else in my experience: When I spend time on the internet, I get this idea of the average democrat as affirming all of the most extreme positions of the democratic party at once: Pro-child mutilation, pro-abortion till birth, antisemitic, pro-ideological indoctrination into critical theory, etc. This impression is justified by the fact that even the "moderate" democrats in public life often seem unwilling to challenge the excesses in their party. But when I get off the internet, go to campus, and talk to an actual democrat student, I find their positions to be more moderate. I find that we can have good conversations, and that they are sometimes willing to shift their positions in response to good arguments.

And that's part of why free speech matters. Screaming at people (online or in person) doesn't change anyone's mind. But good faith face-to-face conversations work. Talking to people you disagree with humanizes them, it challenges you to have better reasons for what you believe, and it forces the "other side" to think about your ideas. I know that's what Charlie Kirk believed, because that's what he spent his life doing. Engaging ideological opponents honestly and graciously destroys the caricature they might have had of you. I've seen it work many times, and that gives me hope that we can change things, one conversation at a time.

So, if you want to make a difference in honor of Charlie Kirk, get off of social media and talk to someone about Jesus this weekend.