Outstanding last couple of paragraphs, Dan. Thank you for providing your thoughts, and a nice template for many (including myself). We can call out MAGA hypocrisy on this issue-- and every other one-- with decency and rationality. We can be somber, but firm. More light, less heat, and let facts and reason win out.
Totally understand where you're coming from, and I'm assuming you're being tongue-in-cheek :-).
If not, then from purely a pragmatic perspective:
The Dem party's credibility and reputation is in the crapper. If Dems (or any anti-MAGA coalition) resort to lies, misrepresentations, and unverified claims that eventually get exposed, that would make things 100X worse. The right has a giant megaphone that can amplify these things, and make everyone distrust Dems/anti-MAGA even more. It's not fair, but it's reality right now. The only way to gain back trust is to be factually correct, have solid premises, and follow reason to good outcomes.
From a philosophical/abstract standpoint:
Reason (including premises based on sound scientific/logical principles) has always been the most reliable course to benefit individuals and society. If we can't get back to that, we may as well pack it in. :-)
At some point their economic situation may become untenable enough that they are forced to rethink…not all of them, but most will not go down with the ship. Of course we can’t count on that happening on our schedule. What we do have to do is find new, creative ways to communicate, which may include more partnering with non-progressive anti-MAGA voices.
Definitely agree. Many of the 30-and-younger voters who propelled Trump to the White House in 2024 are not ideological. They're more pragmatic. They tend to be more "in the moment". If things are good for them, they'll vote for the incumbent. If not, they'll vote the other way. So, if things deteriorate to a really bad level (which it appears it's headed without a course-correction), they'll switch, and in the process may sour on the GOP for a while.
"What we do have to do is find new, creative ways to communicate, which may include more partnering with non-progressive anti-MAGA voices."
10000000%. The most vocal of the left has a tendency to alienate anyone who isn't 100% aligned on every single issue-- esp social ones-- when those people could be powerful allies.
I didn't even know who Charlie Kirk was until yesterday. Today I noticed flags flying at half staff in town, and I found out it was because of Charlie Kirk's assassination. As somebody who was a young person in the 1960s, assassinations terrify me. I remember how scary that time was. I have been afraid for a long time that we were going back to that time and that political violence would become common again. And now there are far more guns in circulation, and the guns are more powerful and easier for untrained extremists to use.
Like another commenter here, I worked on gun violence prevention for years. But I have become less active in that space since a shooting at a school in Nashville convinced me that our state's politicians were not at all ready to take on any responsibility for making even children at their school safer from gun violence. Like Charlie Kirk, these politicians seem to think that the sacrifice of little children's lives was acceptable in order to preserve our "God-given" gun rights.
I hate political violence, but to be honest, I feel no grief at all about the death of somebody who thought the deaths of small children at school was an acceptable price to pay so that men could carry pistols on their grocery shopping trips.
Whenever something like this occurs, I am reminded of RFK Sr’s speech the morning after the MLK assassination. Not the famous extemporaneous remarks the night before, but his prepared remarks the next morning in Cleveland.
I can’t imagine any politician of today being this genuine, compassionate, eloquent and open about any similar happening today. It’s short—a few minutes, and well worth listening to.
You are correct that doing the right thing while holding Trump and his acolytes to account is a delicate balance. Let’s hope our Dem leaders have the wisdom and the finesses to do both, especially in light of the fact that the current occupant of the WH is the worst kind of arsonist in spreading the flames of hate built on (faux) grievance
A common argument I saw from Democrats yesterday was that Kirk did not deserve anyone's empathy because he once said empathy was a made-up term and he preferred sympathy. But we need to be careful here. Empathy is not something to be bestowed only if deserved or earned; empathy is a quality you develop (or not). The scope of people to whom you can honestly show empathy is a hallmark of developing as a human being. A phrase I use often is that "if you're not embarrassed by who you were a few years ago, it means you're not growing".
We can never know if someday Charlie Kirk would have discovered the difference between sympathy and empathy, someday the pool of who he considered "us" may have widened, someday he may have learned how to connect with more and more people to understand how their life experiences drew them into different views than his, and someday he may have increased his capacity for empathy to the point where he passed that learning along to his many acolytes. This same logic applies to everyone, and anyone on our side who could not muster any empathy yesterday should also be seeking ways to widen your own lenses of who you consider one of "us" vs. who you routinely dismiss as "them".
Now that Kirk is gone, my biggest fear is that he will be martyred with his views forever frozen in time without the life lessons he may have someday learned, and that could throw further fuel on the fire.
I know many Democrats (i.e., people who consistently vote Democratic) online and in person and I haven't heard anyone saying that. Yes, we do "need to be careful here."
People should not be killed for their political beliefs. We must also recognize as a society, the types of violence that come from speech. This kind of discursive violence lacks any accountability. Nor does the type of violence done by CEO's making life-and-death discussions based solely on a profit motive.
Until these brazen acts of violence are not tolerated, American society will continue in its current, violent ways. Violence begets violence. The issue is, society doesn't recognize the type of rhetorical violence coming in droves from the right as such. And therefore, the strictures to hold them accountable are lacking.
Having lived through the political assassinations of the 60s and early 70s, I have a sick feeling about the path we’re on. That was a terrible time.
I’m a paid Crooked subscriber, and so have dipped into the Discord once a week or so. Realizing it’s populated by people decades younger, on average, I realize it’s not my thing. But today there were far too many dopes with mild words of regret or condemnation, but then making some stupid point about Charlie Kirk’s content.
Not the place for me. I deleted the app. I have already wasted too much time in my life putting up with crassness. I’ll stick to The Message Box for written content.
Unfortunately we have more guns than people in America and the majority of those guns are owned by the right. I've been working on gun control for 20 years and always said that when the time comes for civil war the left will be "left out". And, let's be clear, both sides have been horrific on gun control.
Appreciated the PSA conversation yesterday about remembering what we want our words to accomplish. As Joanne Freeman says, democracy is a conversation- but what we have now is not. It’s tough to figure out how to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t accept that America is a democracy, and supports tearing it down. That’s my dilemma.
It’s fair game to call out the hypocrisy of the GOP and their supporters who are either silent or downright supportive of violence perpetrated against Democrats without betraying a commitment to nonviolence.
The violent acts listed here are overwhelmingly committed by MAGA supporters. It’s not a surprise when their Orange God openly demonizes. He’s a contemptible POS, but his cowardly enablers are worse. Much worse.
Personally I have also spoken out against those on the left cheering Kirk’s assassination.
Thank you Dan. I must say, I was very unhappy with the video that Jon, Jon, and Tommy posted yesterday. It came off as preachy, and I felt as though I were being scolded preemptively just in case I was feeling unsympathetic. I condemn all violence, political and otherwise, and I feel sorrow for the state of our country. I would have said as much in the comments if they weren’t turned off. Your post today perfectly states what I am guessing most people on the left are feeling. I don’t know anybody who’s celebrating, but I know a lot of people who are acknowledging the reality of the vast harm caused by the MAGA influencers.
I'd like to see video clips of Trump and his people today, calling for an end to "political violence", followed immediately by videos of and posts by Trump himself demeaning his opponents, name-calling, and threatening punishment. HIS incitement AND APPROVAL of violence is self-evident.
Wondering if you are experiencing the reaction to Kirk’s death through the lens of media asymmetry, as I certainly have? I have been struggling while experiencing the false equivalencies between Kirk’s rhetoric and left-wing/progressive policy. Seems to me to be yet another symptom of the catastrophic media asymmetry and the way our politics have been forcefully dragged so far to the right. Kirk’s “talking points” are not normal or even close to a mainstream conservative message. He advocated violence against multiple communities.
You’re absolutely right, Dan, that we can’t cede the position that violence is a both sides issue. It’s MOSTLY right wing! And they incite it more and with greater intensity. If Charlie had stubbed his toe yesterday in Utah, the X idiots would have reacted with the same violent, war verbiage as they did because he died. They want the violence. We can’t let them paint us as just as violent.
Republicans have been using dehumanizing and divisive rhetoric attacking liberals at least since Gingrich. That is longer than many, perhaps most, have been alive. Now, Trump commits acts of stochastic terror almost daily, and Federal Judges are beset by death threats. RW violence is, if anything, celebrated, remember their glee after the attack on Paul Pelosi. And their conspicuous silence after the Hortmans were killed. Yet it's Democratic rhetoric that needs toning down?
It's all part of their play. So, as long as we have a chance to prevail politically (which we very much do), it's impolitic to give them anything to work with, ie any violence. But, let us face it, what's at stake is well worth actually fighting over. That has happened in this country before. MAGA may have just received an instance of what they can expect if they refuse to accept political defeat.
Thank you Dan. This was really well put. Violence is never the answer. Its painful and hurtful as a Democrat to be called out as extremists and terrorists and the party of murder by a right wing that has done nothing but celebrate violence and gun culture (see Charlottesville, Jan 6, the pardoning of Jan 6 perpetrators, etc) but we still need to hold the line on decency here. As much as I disliked everything Charlie Kirk espoused, he did not deserve this, nor did his family. We need to live in a country that solves its problems through the agency of democracy.
Outstanding last couple of paragraphs, Dan. Thank you for providing your thoughts, and a nice template for many (including myself). We can call out MAGA hypocrisy on this issue-- and every other one-- with decency and rationality. We can be somber, but firm. More light, less heat, and let facts and reason win out.
The one thing the last 9 years have proven is facts and reason are a losing strategy.
Totally understand where you're coming from, and I'm assuming you're being tongue-in-cheek :-).
If not, then from purely a pragmatic perspective:
The Dem party's credibility and reputation is in the crapper. If Dems (or any anti-MAGA coalition) resort to lies, misrepresentations, and unverified claims that eventually get exposed, that would make things 100X worse. The right has a giant megaphone that can amplify these things, and make everyone distrust Dems/anti-MAGA even more. It's not fair, but it's reality right now. The only way to gain back trust is to be factually correct, have solid premises, and follow reason to good outcomes.
From a philosophical/abstract standpoint:
Reason (including premises based on sound scientific/logical principles) has always been the most reliable course to benefit individuals and society. If we can't get back to that, we may as well pack it in. :-)
I think we just have to wait for some of the people who voted for Trump to figure out that they made a huge mistake.
They won't "figure it out." They'll have to be told, over and over and over again. But the Democrats don't have the media organs to do it.
At some point their economic situation may become untenable enough that they are forced to rethink…not all of them, but most will not go down with the ship. Of course we can’t count on that happening on our schedule. What we do have to do is find new, creative ways to communicate, which may include more partnering with non-progressive anti-MAGA voices.
Definitely agree. Many of the 30-and-younger voters who propelled Trump to the White House in 2024 are not ideological. They're more pragmatic. They tend to be more "in the moment". If things are good for them, they'll vote for the incumbent. If not, they'll vote the other way. So, if things deteriorate to a really bad level (which it appears it's headed without a course-correction), they'll switch, and in the process may sour on the GOP for a while.
"What we do have to do is find new, creative ways to communicate, which may include more partnering with non-progressive anti-MAGA voices."
10000000%. The most vocal of the left has a tendency to alienate anyone who isn't 100% aligned on every single issue-- esp social ones-- when those people could be powerful allies.
I didn't even know who Charlie Kirk was until yesterday. Today I noticed flags flying at half staff in town, and I found out it was because of Charlie Kirk's assassination. As somebody who was a young person in the 1960s, assassinations terrify me. I remember how scary that time was. I have been afraid for a long time that we were going back to that time and that political violence would become common again. And now there are far more guns in circulation, and the guns are more powerful and easier for untrained extremists to use.
Like another commenter here, I worked on gun violence prevention for years. But I have become less active in that space since a shooting at a school in Nashville convinced me that our state's politicians were not at all ready to take on any responsibility for making even children at their school safer from gun violence. Like Charlie Kirk, these politicians seem to think that the sacrifice of little children's lives was acceptable in order to preserve our "God-given" gun rights.
I hate political violence, but to be honest, I feel no grief at all about the death of somebody who thought the deaths of small children at school was an acceptable price to pay so that men could carry pistols on their grocery shopping trips.
Disappointing and a wake-up call to me, that the flags weren’t half staff for all those who died as a result of 9/11.
Yesterday was 9/11. So flags were at half staff
Very, very constructive and thoughtful, Dan.
Whenever something like this occurs, I am reminded of RFK Sr’s speech the morning after the MLK assassination. Not the famous extemporaneous remarks the night before, but his prepared remarks the next morning in Cleveland.
I can’t imagine any politician of today being this genuine, compassionate, eloquent and open about any similar happening today. It’s short—a few minutes, and well worth listening to.
https://youtu.be/ncUYKk_CuTM?si=L_cObsFQn9EYLn9L
I have seen this. Very touching and stirring message, and yes, well beyond any politicians of today.
Hard to believe he was killed just a few weeks later. Terrible time.
For those who haven't listened to the April 4 speech in Indianapolis, here it is: https://kennedykingindy.org/full-rfk-speech
Listening to the April 5 speech again now.
You are correct that doing the right thing while holding Trump and his acolytes to account is a delicate balance. Let’s hope our Dem leaders have the wisdom and the finesses to do both, especially in light of the fact that the current occupant of the WH is the worst kind of arsonist in spreading the flames of hate built on (faux) grievance
A common argument I saw from Democrats yesterday was that Kirk did not deserve anyone's empathy because he once said empathy was a made-up term and he preferred sympathy. But we need to be careful here. Empathy is not something to be bestowed only if deserved or earned; empathy is a quality you develop (or not). The scope of people to whom you can honestly show empathy is a hallmark of developing as a human being. A phrase I use often is that "if you're not embarrassed by who you were a few years ago, it means you're not growing".
We can never know if someday Charlie Kirk would have discovered the difference between sympathy and empathy, someday the pool of who he considered "us" may have widened, someday he may have learned how to connect with more and more people to understand how their life experiences drew them into different views than his, and someday he may have increased his capacity for empathy to the point where he passed that learning along to his many acolytes. This same logic applies to everyone, and anyone on our side who could not muster any empathy yesterday should also be seeking ways to widen your own lenses of who you consider one of "us" vs. who you routinely dismiss as "them".
Now that Kirk is gone, my biggest fear is that he will be martyred with his views forever frozen in time without the life lessons he may have someday learned, and that could throw further fuel on the fire.
I know many Democrats (i.e., people who consistently vote Democratic) online and in person and I haven't heard anyone saying that. Yes, we do "need to be careful here."
People should not be killed for their political beliefs. We must also recognize as a society, the types of violence that come from speech. This kind of discursive violence lacks any accountability. Nor does the type of violence done by CEO's making life-and-death discussions based solely on a profit motive.
Until these brazen acts of violence are not tolerated, American society will continue in its current, violent ways. Violence begets violence. The issue is, society doesn't recognize the type of rhetorical violence coming in droves from the right as such. And therefore, the strictures to hold them accountable are lacking.
Having lived through the political assassinations of the 60s and early 70s, I have a sick feeling about the path we’re on. That was a terrible time.
I’m a paid Crooked subscriber, and so have dipped into the Discord once a week or so. Realizing it’s populated by people decades younger, on average, I realize it’s not my thing. But today there were far too many dopes with mild words of regret or condemnation, but then making some stupid point about Charlie Kirk’s content.
Not the place for me. I deleted the app. I have already wasted too much time in my life putting up with crassness. I’ll stick to The Message Box for written content.
Unfortunately we have more guns than people in America and the majority of those guns are owned by the right. I've been working on gun control for 20 years and always said that when the time comes for civil war the left will be "left out". And, let's be clear, both sides have been horrific on gun control.
Appreciated the PSA conversation yesterday about remembering what we want our words to accomplish. As Joanne Freeman says, democracy is a conversation- but what we have now is not. It’s tough to figure out how to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t accept that America is a democracy, and supports tearing it down. That’s my dilemma.
It’s fair game to call out the hypocrisy of the GOP and their supporters who are either silent or downright supportive of violence perpetrated against Democrats without betraying a commitment to nonviolence.
The violent acts listed here are overwhelmingly committed by MAGA supporters. It’s not a surprise when their Orange God openly demonizes. He’s a contemptible POS, but his cowardly enablers are worse. Much worse.
Personally I have also spoken out against those on the left cheering Kirk’s assassination.
Thank you Dan. I must say, I was very unhappy with the video that Jon, Jon, and Tommy posted yesterday. It came off as preachy, and I felt as though I were being scolded preemptively just in case I was feeling unsympathetic. I condemn all violence, political and otherwise, and I feel sorrow for the state of our country. I would have said as much in the comments if they weren’t turned off. Your post today perfectly states what I am guessing most people on the left are feeling. I don’t know anybody who’s celebrating, but I know a lot of people who are acknowledging the reality of the vast harm caused by the MAGA influencers.
I'd like to see video clips of Trump and his people today, calling for an end to "political violence", followed immediately by videos of and posts by Trump himself demeaning his opponents, name-calling, and threatening punishment. HIS incitement AND APPROVAL of violence is self-evident.
He is using it. He obviously hopes to terrorize the Federal Judiciary into submission, they are now subject to death threats at his behest.
Wondering if you are experiencing the reaction to Kirk’s death through the lens of media asymmetry, as I certainly have? I have been struggling while experiencing the false equivalencies between Kirk’s rhetoric and left-wing/progressive policy. Seems to me to be yet another symptom of the catastrophic media asymmetry and the way our politics have been forcefully dragged so far to the right. Kirk’s “talking points” are not normal or even close to a mainstream conservative message. He advocated violence against multiple communities.
You’re absolutely right, Dan, that we can’t cede the position that violence is a both sides issue. It’s MOSTLY right wing! And they incite it more and with greater intensity. If Charlie had stubbed his toe yesterday in Utah, the X idiots would have reacted with the same violent, war verbiage as they did because he died. They want the violence. We can’t let them paint us as just as violent.
Republicans have been using dehumanizing and divisive rhetoric attacking liberals at least since Gingrich. That is longer than many, perhaps most, have been alive. Now, Trump commits acts of stochastic terror almost daily, and Federal Judges are beset by death threats. RW violence is, if anything, celebrated, remember their glee after the attack on Paul Pelosi. And their conspicuous silence after the Hortmans were killed. Yet it's Democratic rhetoric that needs toning down?
It's all part of their play. So, as long as we have a chance to prevail politically (which we very much do), it's impolitic to give them anything to work with, ie any violence. But, let us face it, what's at stake is well worth actually fighting over. That has happened in this country before. MAGA may have just received an instance of what they can expect if they refuse to accept political defeat.
Thank you Dan. This was really well put. Violence is never the answer. Its painful and hurtful as a Democrat to be called out as extremists and terrorists and the party of murder by a right wing that has done nothing but celebrate violence and gun culture (see Charlottesville, Jan 6, the pardoning of Jan 6 perpetrators, etc) but we still need to hold the line on decency here. As much as I disliked everything Charlie Kirk espoused, he did not deserve this, nor did his family. We need to live in a country that solves its problems through the agency of democracy.