In these last few days yet another cataclysmic event has shaken the tenor of our mental state and our discourse. The premeditated brutal murder of Charlie Kirk is significant for a number of reasons.
Kirk was effective at what he was doing, namely braving the
campuses of our nation and engaging young people in open debate. True his tone
was sometime combative, but he never evaded a point made against him. He was
well informed and logical. And this was was why he was killed. His killer
interpreted his views as a personal affront, as evidence that Kirk hated him.
And the many who celebrated his murder did so because they found Kirk intolerably
annoying, especially since he seemed to be gaining traction in convincing some
students. He created a nationwide organization to push back against the formidable
decaying of the young American mind. And this terrified his incoherent critics.
So, while the murder itself shocked and saddened me greatly,
I am equally alarmed by the reaction to it. It is almost like another October
7, where the victim is seen as an oppressor deserving of his fate. There seems
to be a lot of this going on. And it is huge and in your face. How is it
possible to understand the complete silence about it at the Emmy’s. You do not
have to have liked the guy, but he was a nationally prominent figure who was
murdered for what he thought and said. That is an outrage no matter his views.
A dignified public condemnation of such violence is the minimum one could
expect. The reason is clear. There are large elements of our celebrity and
chattering class who have abandoned the fundamental American commitment to open
debate and the importance of never resolving political differences with
violence. Many now think violence is ok to silence what they believe are
destructive speakers. That is pretty scary, right?
Consider the almost unbelievable contrast to the reaction to
the George Floyd killing. As reprehensible as Floyd’s killing was, it was in no
way any more significant or reprehensible than Kirk’s murder. Whatever the
differences in circumstances, and there are many, the differences in reaction
are in no way justifiable.
For the record, I do not agree with some of Kirk’s personal
beliefs, and some policy preferences that may flow from them. For example, I am
pro-choice on the question of abortion, I regard sexual orientation as a matter
of private free choice without moral implications (as a believing Christian, he
towed the fundamentalist line on this), though I do agree with his
condemnations of government interference in the transgender space, and some
other implications relating to this.
For the rest, he understood and explained classical liberal economics
admirably, being cognizant of all the significant scholarly authorities that
his student listeners, even those studying economies, were abysmally ignorant
of. He was articulately effective in
pointing out the dysfunctionality and immorality of our social welfare and anti-discrimination
policies. And more. He filled a space that was otherwise not available to these
students, these young minds on and off the campus. And it is my hope that it
will be his legacy that in some way his efforts and their effectiveness will continue.
