Without debate there’s no hope, but it’s not enough
Elections must be the beginning, not the end of how we govern.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was an evil act of violence in its own right, made worse by other factors. He was young and married with two little children. Countless Americans – especially, but not limited to, young men – found inspiration in him and valuable guidance.
Adding to the tragedy is that it appears that the murder was politically motivated, providing more kindling for those on both sides.
I knew who Charlie Kirk was, but I did not know too much about him, his beliefs, and how he put them into practice. I have learned much more in the past two weeks, though every time I thought about joining in the commentary beyond decrying his murder and calling for prayers, I held my tongue (or stopped my thumbs).
If only more people did this before opining in ways that have made our divide worse.
However, there is one thing that Charlie Kirk has been praised for by many, across the political spectrum. As New York Times center-left liberal columnist Ezra Klein wrote: “Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him.”
It is good to see this type of behavior receiving praise, especially since Kirk did it from a conservative perspective which has faced tremendous intolerance on many campuses.
When I was in college in the 1980s I had my own experiences of intolerance from the left, but the spirit of debate was still very much alive. We’d engage in a back-and-forth on various topics, sometimes getting heated but never too hot. This is extremely rare today. If we are going to keep our republic, real debate needs to return. And we all need to be a part of it.
But, a few words of caution.