I got into an argument with a random person on X (where I lately spend too much of my time, I regret to admit) after having the audacity to “partly agree” with Glenn Greenwald’s take on the awful murder of Charlie Kirk. I did point out in my reply that Greenwald’s equating the Right and Left doesn’t quite pass muster — but the word “partly” set off my hot-headed interlocutor regardless.
“Partly = code for capitulation,” this person responded. “When I start hearing Democrats saying the same thing consistently all the time then you can maybe get away with it. Until then, stop partially blaming the hunted.” This was then followed by an empty threat that he’d be fine with telling me this to my face too. Whatever.
This unpleasant and otherwise meaningless interaction did get me thinking: Are many right-wing people, myself included, too lenient towards the Democrats in the wake of this heinous killing?
In my own defense, I specifically stated that “that there’s a big subset among progressives willing to endorse violence,” which is undeniably true. And I made that claim to implicitly point out the contrast with conservatives, who largely lack this propensity for physical conflict.
It’s also true, though, that both sides employ the same tactic of smearing their political enemies every time an atrocity like this happens, but then drop said tactic like a hot potato after the next incident if the roles are reversed. The dynamic goes something like this: What looks to be political violence is committed and the perpetrator is found out to be of a certain political leaning. The opposite party will scream bloody murder and tie its opponents to the perpetrator (“words lead to violence!”), while the defendants will deny any culpability or links to the perp (“he/she was a mentally deranged loner!”).
Then another violent incident occurs and the party formerly telling us that words lead to violence magically flip-flops on this position and will from here on out vehemently deny that its ugly smears of its political opponents could ever motivate dangerous individuals to take their hatred to the next level.
We should, as a general rule, be careful to assign collective blame for the actions of a handful of unhinged people. Republicans are now routinely portrayed as Nazis, fascists, and threats to democracy by the Democrats, as Greg Price puts it in the embedded tweet above. Republicans similarly portray Democrats as socialists, communists, or traitors to their country. Yet Greenwald makes a valid point when he writes (in the part of the tweet not visible above): “As Kirk himself said: “WORDS ARE NOT VIOLENCE. ONLY VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE.” Stop trying to convert words and the expression of views into criminal violence.”
What Greenwald fails to mention, however, is that it has become undeniable in recent years that the Left is cultivating deranged individuals and celebrating heinous acts committed by such people. In no case did this fact become more evident than with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on December 4 of last year. Thompson was shot three times from behind by Luigi Mangione, who instantly attained cult status on the Left, with public figures like Taylor Lorenz actively defending the murderer. A poll found that liberals and younger Americans have a vastly more favorable view of Mangione than conservatives and older people, with 47% (!) of “very liberal” people holding a very or somewhat favorable view of a man who murdered another man in cold blood, shooting him from behind. This poll really brought home the extent of the problem to hitherto oblivious Americans.
It is no wonder other offenders have jumped up since. When there exists a substantial subculture of people explicitly cheering on violence — this happened in 2020, after 10/7, with Mangione, and now with Kirk — others get motivated to step up for the cause. This is not rocket science. After all, we are not talking about a dozen anonymous crazies on an internet forum here, but established figures with massive online followings. As a result, the incidents of “left on right” violence outnumber the “right on left” incidents probably 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 lately (I haven’t kept count).
This fascination with physical aggression is nothing new in left-wing circles either, for it dates back to the Jacobins in France and the Bolsheviks in Russia. It has now invaded the Democratic Party, which has been all but swallowed whole by the radicalism from its left flank.
The party establishment has been too scared to combat it, and so political veterans like Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, and others have been paying lip service to the lunatics within their ranks. This ultimately spilled over into actual policy making during the Biden years. Hence the chaos at the border, men particpating in women’s sports, trillions of dollars of wasteful spending, soft-on-crime policies in every Democrat-controlled city, and, in the end, Donald Trump.
The reckoning has come. And as tragic and enraging as Charlie Kirk’s fate is, his despicable murder is ultimately a sign that the Left has run out of arguments and understands it’s lost the cultural battle if not the entire war. The monumental pendulum swing in 2020 and the years following has been completely reversed now. For all the heated rhetoric and anger on display in the wake of this seismic event, the country seems to be returning back to normalcy.
People are clearly sick of the murders (besides Kirk another innocent Ukrainian girl was killed last week on a subway in Charlotte by a repeat offender for no other reason than just being in the wrong place at the wrong time). They see the rioting on college campuses in “defense” of “Palestine” and wonder why they should be shelling out for their own children to get a degree any longer. They are tired of “Lia” Thomas playing pretend female while crushing the entire field of girls’ collegiate swimming in the process. And they are worn by the blue-haired nose rings covered in tattoos hysterically lecturing us from behind their smartphones. We are done with it all.
The positive news is that there are many decent people stuck in the middle, including in the Democratic Party, who never wished for those to their left to bring the country to this boiling point, and who can be persuaded to come back into the fold by compelling arguments made by good-faith people. I would argue that this is in the spirit of Charlie Kirk.
In conclusion, I guess it’s the absolutism on our side this past week which set me off a bit. If we can no longer find humanity in our political opponents, the time might have come to file for divorce — first thing tomorrow morning. I continue to believe there are good people on the Left who can be reasoned with, who abhor the violence, and who can move past their tribal instincts. Indeed, Cenk Uygur of all people seems to be one of them. The people publicly cheering for Kirk’s untimely death are likely a tiny minority which nevertheless receives all the attention from those who are trying to prove a point.
That said, the first order of business for the Democrats is to purge the party of people in that minority. That means the party leadership should grow a pair and publicly distance itself from the TikTok army of young people who engaged in such behavior this week. (This should include maniacal hussie Taylor Lorenz, who is outright toxic and should be shunned by polite society.)
More Charlie Kirks will inevitably follow if they fail to succeed. But with the electoral future of the party arguably hanging in the balance, odds are that change is finally in the air.
The Free Dutchman 
Leave a comment