People are predictably enraged that I had the audacity to write this article yesterday, questioning whether we’re all obliged to sit passively by while Charlie Kirk gets inducted into the pantheon of slain American political saints. But I’m just following Glenn Greenwald’s dictum:
We are all taught that it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, particularly in the immediate aftermath of someone’s death. For a private person, in a private setting, that makes perfect sense. Most human beings are complex and shaped by conflicting drives, defined by both good and bad acts. That’s more or less what it means to be human. And — when it comes to private individuals — it’s entirely appropriate to emphasize the positives of someone’s life and avoid criticisms upon their death: it comforts their grieving loved ones and honors their memory. In that context, there’s just no reason, no benefit, to highlight their flaws.
But that is completely inapplicable to the death of a public person, especially one who is political. When someone dies who is a public figure by virtue of their political acts — like Ronald Reagan — discussions of them upon death will be inherently politicized. How they are remembered is not strictly a matter of the sensitivities of their loved ones, but has substantial impact on the culture which discusses their lives. To allow significant political figures to be heralded with purely one-sided requiems — enforced by misguided (even if well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of their bad acts — is not a matter of politeness; it’s deceitful and propagandistic. To exploit the sentiments of sympathy produced by death to enshrine a political figure as Great and Noble is to sanction, or at best minimize, their sins. Misapplying private death etiquette to public figures creates false history and glorifies the ignoble.
The above 100% applies to Charlie Kirk, whom none of the people reading this right now would be talking about if not for his public political activities. So yes — I’m going to keep challenging the rapidly-congealing, and groundless, mythology.
For instance, today Utah Governor Spencer Cox, who clearly wants to run for president, cited what he made out to be a touching and wise quote from Charlie Kirk, about how we all needed to get off the internet, read the Bible, and re-connect with our friends and family. Cox forgot to mention the context, which was that Charlie was urging his followers to disengage and uncritically “trust” the government during the US-Israeli war on Iran in June 2025. That was the context in which Charlie Kirk was advising that everybody log off and stop complaining about what Trump was doing — that is, mobilizing for war in the Middle East.
So yes — I’m going to keep countering this nonsense.
By the way, I haven’t forgotten about the plagiarism of Jessica Reed Kraus. She posted a very strange and incoherent “apology” on Wednesday, which I will soon make a point to address. The whole Charlie Kirk thing has thrown me off a bit from what I’d been planning to cover. As the news broke, I was on my way to the Comedy Cellar for this podcast recording. Maybe not the most opportune moment for some laughs, but we made the best of it. I also recorded this Reason podcast last week, and it finally just came out. I think it’s probably the best podcast I’ve done so far on Epstein. I’m headed out to do yet another podcast this afternoon. Will no one rid us of these godforsaken podcasts!!!!!
