Last night Donald Trump declared Charlie Kirk “a martyr for truth.” I strongly disagree with this characterization of Charlie Kirk. I also strongly object to Charlie Kirk being shot dead in broad daylight, by an assailant who is still unknown, and apparently at large, as of this writing.
So what am I to do in this situation? Everyone is bound to scream “NOW IS NOT THE TIME!” or “TOO SOON!” if I challenge the rapidly-congealing hagiography, or the fast-track attempts to bestow Charlie Kirk with civic sainthood. But unfortunately, now is the time. And it is not too soon. It would be too late if I waited, out of a misplaced sense of decorum, to register objections only after the new popular mythology took hold. Because when that happens, the canonization and mythification can be almost impossible to dislodge. They’ve already apparently sent Air Force Two to retrieve Kirk’s body; I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump orders some kind of state funeral, or quasi-state funeral. Trump already says he’s going to posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Here’s my point: it has to be possible to counter these politically credulous tributes without being accused of excusing or diminishing the murder, which I am most certainly not doing. In fact, I find it especially heinous, because separate and apart from my other views on Charlie Kirk, the slaying occurred at a public political gathering, and the incident will probably now be used to justify clampdowns on organic political exchange and debate — which I regard as vital to a thriving civic culture, and which I frequently participate in myself, whenever possible.
There’s already a major problem in the United States with excessive “security theater,” wherein every public event is now increasingly reminiscent of a sterile TSA checkpoint. You can’t get within several football fields of a Party Political Convention anymore without having to pass through squadrons of militarized police, uniformed military, and a million other tedious “security,” bureaucratic, and credentialing hurdles. It’s incredibly obnoxious, and I would argue, stifling. So if this Charlie Kirk incident now means something as simple as showing up to a college campus to take questions and engage in debate will now have to be accompanied by even more onerous “safety” measures, I take great exception to that — and I resent the perpetrator for the damage that he (or she?) has wrought. This ordeal will likely accelerate the already-ongoing process whereby public political engagement only takes place in the form of fake town halls and other such manufactured, choreographed pantomimes of real-world political events, and I consider that really bad.
That said, Charlie Kirk was not a “truth-teller” — however much people might now want to declare his eternal martyrdom. I got some calls over the past day from friends and acquaintances wondering how I was holding up, seeing as Charlie Kirk and I must’ve been part of the same industry or field. But I emphatically reject that I was ever in the same “profession” (if you want to call it that) as Charlie Kirk. He was a government functionary. A mouthpiece. He trafficked in ludicrous propaganda on behalf of the Administration he loyally served. And was doing this basically 24/7, in the extremely recent past.
Perhaps most notoriously, after taking a personal phone call from Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk hopped on his podcast the next day and proclaimed, “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” He then bizarrely tried to deny that he said this, or insist it had somehow been taken out of context — which it hadn’t. The context was that Trump got annoyed that a bunch of people had criticized him over Epstein at Kirk’s “Turning Point USA” conference, and then Trump called up Kirk, and then shortly thereafter, Kirk announced he was going to do the government’s bidding. That’s just what Kirk was, and the role he played in US political affairs — notwithstanding how people might now want to exalt him as a paragon of truth-telling virtue because of his untimely death.
His conduct was even more egregious in the run-up to Trump bombing Iran in June. During that episode, he pretty much served as a blatant government disinformation agent. Harsh as that might sound after he was brutally gunned down yesterday, it’s simply true. His mission was to demand uncritical faith in the US government, during a time of war — which is totally inexcusable for anyone who would consider themselves anything even remotely approximating a “journalist.” But that’s clearly not what Charlie Kirk considered himself. He instead considered himself a government media mouthpiece. On April 3, he said “A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.” Then by June 17, as drumbeats for the joint US-Israeli war against Iran were intensifying to full volume, Charlie changed his tune to mollify Trump, whom his whole identity was built around sycophantically serving. “It is possible to be an extreme isolationist,” Charlie Kirk warned his massive audience. “President Donald Trump is a man made for this moment, and we should trust him.” This was just pathetic. Turn off your critical thinking skills and place unquestioning “trust” in the US government to wage a war on false pretenses! What awesome, noble “truth-telling”!
Kirk then called for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, for the peace-bringing act of launching a new war in the Middle East. As I wrote at the time, “The shamelessness of these people has no bottom — it’s gotten to the point where you just have to marvel at the spectacle.” That was Charlie Kirk. He openly deceived his viewers and listeners, falsely insisting that Trump had been courageously pursuing “peace,” when in reality Trump was mobilizing for war in conjunction with Israel. At the time, I labeled Kirk a “depraved minion” for doing what he did, and I’m not about to retract that accusation just because he got killed yesterday. That would be absurd.
“We must trust Trump,” declared Charlie Kirk, the martyred truth-teller:
I stand by this completely, and there is zero reason to revise my assessment in light of Kirk’s death:
Charlie Kirk had been a cog in the propaganda machine of the Republican Party, declaring totally baselessly that a vote for Trump in the 2024 election was a vote to “bring peace to the Middle East.” And when the exact opposite happened, Charlie was imploring his followers to simply “pray” and uncritically trust the President. He was detestable.
And he wasn’t just some random commentator or podcaster. He was a full-time, extremely influential Republican Party apparatchik. His mega-donor funded outfit “Turning Point USA” ran “Get Out The Vote” operations for the Trump Campaign in the 2024 election. I’m not saying Charlie Kirk wasn’t entitled to engage in these political activities in a free society with lots of billionaire largesse available for ambitious operatives willing to serve as Republican Party Youth Galvanizer. I’m just saying I’m not obliged to fawningly express reverence for him now, simply by virtue of his sudden and hideous death.
Furthermore, I am very much entitled to challenge the hagiography and mythology that is so quickly congealing around him, such that he’s now being expeditiously put into the pantheon of martyred American saints — which is completely ridiculous. However, I’m fully aware that my limited efforts in this regard will have virtually zero effect. The absurd reverence-fest will continue unimpeded. And sure, if I ever get randomly murdered, and you have substantive political or journalistic objections to any attempts that might be made to transform me into a heroic National Icon, feel free to register those objections in the exact same way I am doing here.
I was approached by an intermediary to potentially appear on Charlie Kirk’s show this summer, and I would have done it, notwithstanding these and other criticisms I had. But it never came to pass. Oh well.
By the way, for anyone who might have wanted to instantly assume that Charlie Kirk must’ve been killed by Israel for some bizarre reason, here’s a Fox News clip today of Benjamin Netanyahu paying tribute to Charlie as an “extraordinary friend.” According to Netanyahu, in May of this year, Charlie sent him a letter proclaiming “One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel.” How heart-warming.
It is really low of you to speak ill of the dead before the body is cold.
Do better.
As it stands it is very difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you.
But hey, at least you kept your progressive credentials in good standing while his widow and orphans cry over his MARTYRED corpse.
I've been looking through X the last couple of days and what I keep seeing is commentary about Kirk's ability to debate with respect and decorum from both people who disagree and agree with him. I can't remember anyone claiming he was some sort of purveyor of truth. Everyone knows he's a political operative. The nature of of the job inherently involves trade-offs and compromises. The story is that he was assassinated for non-violent political speech. A husband, a father, and a person who lived his life with purpose. So to publish an article that focuses on his lack of truth telling in certain situations as a political operative and to pretend that tons of people have been running around elevating him to some some sort of saint for being a purveyor of truth outside the realm of other political operatives is just contrived click bait.