Polarising politics and the normalisation of hate in American public life may just have cost Donald Trump’s popular supporter, Charlie Kirk, his life. The ultra-right-wing activist and CEO of Turning Point was shot dead whilst addressing an audience at Utah Valley University as part of his controversial American Comeback Trip across campuses.
Famous or even infamous as the cheerleader for the Trump brand of politics, Kirk had expounded contentiously on matters like climate change, the civil rights movement, minorities, gun control, LGBTQ etc, that valorised Trump’s regressive stands on each of these issues. Ironically, despite a surge in shooting incidents across campuses and schools, Kirk had recklessly conflated the same with the preservation of the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear weapons). He had stated, “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights... That is a prudent deal.” It was a hardline “Trumpish” (il) logic that may have critically contributed to his own life.
Stupefyingly, even Trump had survived a gun attack during his campaign — but has been recklessly demolishing various progressive laws, one after the other, since his successful return to the White House. For once Trump was right in calling the shooting an unacceptable outgrowth of overheated rhetoric.
But the invaluable role in heating and inflaming the societal rhetoric can be attributed to a very large extent to the sort of positions, politics, and dog-whistling as normalised by Trump himself. The radicalisation of American society (and its distrustful international diplomacy) has selectively legitimised extremist views either by patronage (directly or indirectly with telling silences), or conversely, galvanised similarly extremist views from across the ideological aisle.
Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicanism is a far cry from the inclusivist and more moderate tenor of previous Presidents from the Republican ranks like George W. Bush, George HW Bush, or even Ronald Reagan. Whereas Trump and his cheerleading band — such as Nick Fuentes (founder of the America First Movement), Laura Loomer (far-right commentator), Alex Jones (host of InfoWars), or even Charlie Kirk himself — fronted a decidedly more supremacist, racist, exclusivist, and xenophobic agenda that charged the environment explosively. However, whatever be the ideology or the expressed position of any political commentator, there simply cannot be any justification for violence. Nothing can condone Kirk’s shooting, as democratic societies will always have disagreements (and they are necessary) — but the “other side” in any argument must never confront those disagreements with violence.
Disagreements or contrarian positions must be addressed maturely, as the English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall stated, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Today in many participative democracies, violence is willy-nilly seen as a legitimate response to a contrarian position, under the pretext of nationalism. As part of underlying nativism or majoritarianism (which is always peddled as nationalism), Kirk had unsavoury opinions about India and Indian ethnicity. He had infamously stated, “America does not need more visas for people from India. Perhaps no form of legal immigration has so displaced American workers as those from India. Enough already.”
However, the misplaced commonality of hatred of other groups in terms of religion and countries of origin made many in India overlook (even support) Trump’s hate-filled agenda of governance, which ultimately struck a supposed friend when its presumed utility was served.
Delhi has now seen firsthand Trump’s fickle, distrustful, and inelegant diatribe against India to hopefully understand that someone’s hate can never be directed at your enemy’s door exclusively, for it can rebound on you too! Sadly, while Kirk himself always defended the other’s right to disagree with him and insisted on public debates to settle an argument, his political masters (as it happens in every democracy) were far more selective and manipulative in applying the freedom
of speech.
While many of them rightly mourn the shooting of Kirk today, they had remained silent or made boorish statements when, for example, the victims of hate shootouts included those from the other side of the ideological fence.
Unhinged and relentless politicians like Trump will pander to selectivity to further their personal agenda, thereby vitiating the environment even more. By his Presidential proclamation, Trump has ordered national mourning by flying the national flag at half-staff or “lowered status.”
This solemn gesture is usually reserved for the death of principal Governmental figures like the President, Vice-President, Chief Justice etc., national tragedies resulting in large deaths, the death of friendly foreign dignitaries, or memorials of fallen military personnel or first responders. However, while Kirk’s shooting must be condemned unequivocally and without any partisan context, this ascribing of national mourning for a polarising person with no Governmental position is sheer politics of further weaponising partisanship. For a practising and preaching Christian (whilst ascribing vile attributions to those from other faiths, ethnicities, colour, or political beliefs), irony dies many deaths when the Bible (especially, Matthew 26:52) is reflected, where Jesus rebukes a disciple who tried to defend Him with a sword, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” But the political likes of Trump have weaponised religion too.