Making Charlie Kirk a Martyr
Terry H. Schwadron
Sept. 12, 2025
Even as slain conservative Pied Piper Charlie Kirk was being heralded as a martyr to political violence, myriad underlying contradictions remain for Americans to choose what to learn from another apparent assassination.
The many immediate questions ranged from about how best to show concern, especially from those who dislike the misogynistic, pro-gun and anti-liberal ideas towards an increasingly White, Christian nation that Kirk promoted, to the weirdness of an FBI director ready to declare victory in a manhunt still underway even as the apparent weapon has been located surveillance camera pictures emerged.
It was off-putting that Donald Trump, without evidence of an arrest or motive, selected a tone of ant-Left belligerence amid a sea of bipartisan messages about the need to calm political differences and to avoid violence. Trump, among some others, made it sound as if only those on the political right are under attack.
We were left wondering more about the scope of Trump retribution than restraint on the use of weapons to settle political debate or any attempt to find commonality.
It almost was as if unnecessary partisanship was overtaking the importance of a life halted early simply for arguing for his political ideals, however controversial. Despite the talk of “thoughts and prayers” for Kirk, if felt as if there was immediate desire to stamp the fatal shooting either as conservative martyrdom or live-by-the-sword thinking about promoting the politics of disruption and full rights only for some. The desire to express sympathy got rocky with what-aboutism over assassination attempts for non-conservatives, as if political violence stops at one argument or another.
Why is it that political assassination — even of someone not a top-rank elected leader — can bring our country to a halt for a day but that the slaughter of schoolchildren does not? Why is it that we accept the idea that political “debate” should be settled with a rifle bullet? Should we be surprised at the number of new threats that emerged even one day after the Kirk killing against sitting politicians, electoral candidates, and journalists?
Kirk’s ‘Free Speech’
On a deeper level, there remain questions about the message that Kirk promoted.
Kirk’s public broadcasts, appearances and debates were labeled with a desire to promote “free speech,” particularly among the young and on campuses. He distinctly argued that his rightist message was not being fully represented in the public marketplace — even while claiming a social media following of tens of millions.
Even this campus appearance in Utah drew a reported audience of thousands to offer an array of opinions against abortion, for Christian values, against immigration, for gun rights, against anything related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and for voting restrictions.
Curiously, as in Elon Musk’s takeover of X, the “free speech” message is that some speech — the speech that supports deportations and the end of civil rights, for example, is more valued than other speech,
The irony is that “free speech” as Kirk and Trump promote, increasingly does not allow for speech that raises questions about the excesses of Israeli Palestinian warmaking, or the struggles of trying to live as a transgender person, or the values of businesses, universities and a military that sees value in actively seeking to hire and promote non-White candidates.
The very campuses that Kirk sought to open to “debate,” are being subjected to Trump extortion and prosecution to stop any understanding of “free speech” that does not support what an authoritarian Trump dictates should be policy about everything from medical “science” to rewritten history to politicized use of federal agencies from Justice to the Smithsonian Institution museums.
Clearly, millions of conservatives saw Kirk as a symbol of a Christian movement to breaking down borders between right-wing politics and evangelical faith — and ensuring that some form of Trumpism will continue beyond the current term with the help of younger converts to his cause. Why that cause necessarily continues to exclude public policy that protects the vulnerable and allows for individual choice and responsibility is a question that martyrdom will not answer.
##