Charlie Kirk died in one of the most grotesque ways imaginable: a lone assassin’s bullet to his neck, fired before a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University. The shooting, which was horrific and effectively ruled out any chance of survival, was filmed and viewed by millions on social media almost instantly.
This event was especially surreal for members of the Dartmouth community, considering Kirk was scheduled to debate left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker in a little over two weeks at the Hanover Inn in an event sponsored by the Dartmouth Political Union. The event had been sold out for months.
One thing should be universally agreed upon: political violence is evil in all its forms and never furthers the ideologies of those who participate in it.
However, his death forces a reckoning with the divisive legacy he leaves behind. Kirk contributed to the hateful political moment that killed him. His views were abhorrent. He opposed same-sex marriage; transgender rights; gun-control in nearly all its forms; abortion even in cases of rape and incest, barring extraordinary circumstances; and controversially even among conservatives, the Civil Rights Act.
Kirk supported Christian nationalism, and its integration into schools; all three of Donald Trump’s presidential runs; and the “Big Lie” that President Trump won the 2020 election. In fact, he went as far as to organize the Stop the Steal protest at the Maricopa Tabulation Center.
The damage Kirk helped deal to trust in our elections is probably the most dangerous facet of his legacy. Though he was not alone in supporting election denialist conspiracy theories, he went along with activities that can directly be traced to the bloodshed on Jan. 6 — which left seven people dead.
In conversation, some of my peers have tried to defend Kirk’s apparent willingness to meet opponents on their home turf. He seemed to demonstrate open-mindedness by visiting the most liberal bastions of debate, they say. In reality, I see these stunts as a tool to gain clout and go viral on social media, rather than to foster substantive political dialogue.
In all the short clips he published, he snarkily put opponents in their place with tired hypotheticals, false equivalencies and strings of logical fallacies. It was far more performance art than it was constructive debate. These simplified clips of “owning the libs” were what made him a superstar — not a genuine commitment to the crucible of American debate.
Spreading extremist views will only pay in the short-term and eventually will lead to unspeakable tragedy. Instead of elevating Kirk as an icon of American ideological debate, we should come together and address the prevalence of gun violence in our country.
In a just world — where Americans would rise above the partisan bait set by opportunists like Charlie Kirk — he would still be alive today, spouting his sorry views to an audience of none.
Brendan Hofmann-Carr is a member of the Class of 2029. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
