Charlie Kirk

I have had quite the week, with a lot to do at work. I've already mentioned two of my projects -- the weeding of our poetry and literature section, and cleaning up and organizing the board games in the Lower School. There was more of that, plus daily routines, putting up a new display and pulling a cart of books for an upcoming class. Now, finally, the old literature books have been stamped and boxed for charity, the board games are about half organized, and as of yesterday evening, everything was where it belonged -- for the moment!

And then there's been this terrible news about Charlie Kirk. I obviously disagreed with Kirk on many issues, based on what I've read and seen of his public remarks. But I didn't follow him closely, and of course I would not wish violence upon him for merely expressing his opinions. If we can't have a conversation, if we can't exchange opposing views, we're in a dark place as a society.

David French wrote an interesting column in the Times that emphasized this dangerous ground. "One of the worst elements of modern political discourse is that we tend to learn about our opponents entirely through the words and actions we find offensive..." French wrote. "We don’t ever see the points of agreement. We rarely see the person outside his political context. Post by post, our hearts harden until some people reach a point where they will celebrate the deaths of people they’ve grown to despise."

I often see this in comments on right-wing news sites, where Democrats are vilified and continually threatened with violence as traitors, satanists and communists. I'm sure it happens on left-wing sites too, though commenters on the mainstream news sites I read tend to be pretty reserved.

The internet lends itself to this kind of dehumanization, this blind outrage, because we don't have extended, thoughtful exchanges where we're looking into the eyes of our opponents and seeing them as a whole person. They're just obnoxious anonymous trolls, popping in for quick sniping comments, the snarkier the better. Modern social media fosters this climate.

We all have the same questions -- what prompted Kirk's assassin to act as he did? What stirred him so much that he felt killing Kirk was justified? I'm stating the obvious, but even for a person worried about the political trajectory of the USA and many of our western democracies -- as I am -- this was an extreme act. And the alleged perpetrator seems like such a nice boy, with a promising future. So many questions, but the main one is Why?

Again, I'm stating the obvious, but killing a single person like Kirk achieves nothing. In fact, it's counterproductive, because your foe is elevated and becomes a martyr. I've already seen right-wingers likening Kirk to Martin Luther King Jr., which I find galling but the comparison is out there. You can't kill an idea. This is the same mistake governments make when they try to kill individual terrorists, even if they are powerful leaders and organizers -- there's always another one ready to step up and take the place of the fallen, because the foe isn't a person, it's an idea, a philosophy. Kirk and his fellow leaders aren't the enemy. Right-wing, evangelical Christian nationalism and extreme conservatism are what's dangerous.

French concluded his column with a quote by Abraham Lincoln spoken on the eve of the Civil War: "I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

It can be difficult to feel any affection for our political opponents in this day and age, but I think we have to try. It's the "turn-the-other-cheek" message that many of us were raised with. Otherwise, where are we headed?

(Photo: An apartment building reflected in a puddle on the street, yesterday.)