Last week, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, co-founder of Turning Point USA, and ally of President Trump was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
Charlie had a huge following of supporters who strongly agreed with his conservative values and views. He also had a huge following of detractors who strongly disagreed with him.
This column will not focus on defending or challenging his views on the issues of the day.
In today’s deeply divided world, an effort to change strongly held views is an exercise in futility.
Instead, I will focus on how he conducted himself in expressing and discussing his views.
In watching videos of Charlie’s events with large crowds of mostly young people, college students and high school students I was always impressed with how different those engagements were in contrast to much of the political debates in our society.
Charlie presented his strongly held views without being aggressive or condescending. He always listened intently and respectfully to those who strongly disagreed with his views. He regularly took questions, answered questions. and listened to criticism of his views.
He encouraged and relished direct engagement with supporters and critics alike.
At the opening of his events, he often told attendees — if you disagree with my views, come to the front of the line so we can share and talk about our respective positions.
He was the epitome of a person who could disagree without being disagreeable.
Despite his civil approach in delivering, defending, and discussing his beliefs, he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.
Immediately following his death and since then, there have been countless people saying or writing they condone, support, justify, or are actually celebrating Kirk’s murder.
They have a constitutional right to do that. They do not have human decency.
They do not understand or commit to the belief that every human life has value deserving protection and respect.
That is true even when that human expresses his or her beliefs that his or her opponents may strongly disagree with or even abhor without being murdered.
Mao Zedong, longtime leader of China once said, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”
Currently in America, politics has become war with bloodshed.
This lack of civil discourse and respect for differing opinions is not exclusive to any religious affiliation or political party.
In just the past few months, two children were murdered, and seventeen people were injured when a shooter opened fire during worship in a Catholic school in Minnesota. The shooter’s manifesto described his hatred of Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, and President Trump.
Also in Minnesota, a pro-abortion rights Democratic – Farm- Labor party State Representative was murdered along with her husband. A fellow pro-abortion rights Democratic -Farm – Labor Party State Senator, and his wife were shot by the same individual, but both survived the attempted murder. The murderer is an anti-abortion advocate.
Murders of children elected public officials, and political activists such as Charlie Kirk are more than tragedies.
They are a further indication of a warp speed acceleration in our society on the decline of civil discourse and decency, and the desensitization of the loss of human life.
Next year will mark 250 years of America’s experiences with free speech and civil discourse on and a wide range of divisive issues.
I am increasingly uncertain free speech and civil discourse in America will ever return.
In the book, Poorer Richard’s America, there is an ominous suggestion that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Organic Evolution: Natural Selection, applies not only to nature, but also to nations.
One example is Great Britain:
At one time, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world.
It was often said, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
After the end of World War Two, Great Britain declined rapidly as a great world power.
Some suggest that America is on a path do the same and will do so sooner rather than later.
That outcome is not inevitable.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a19th century French diplomat, political scientist, and social critic suggested that “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”
It is not too late for Americans, individually and collectively, to strive to be good with a renewed commitment to freedom of speech, civil discourse, and respect for all people, all ideas, and all beliefs.
David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.