The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not just about one man or his ideology. It raises the broader question of how disagreement is handled in America today. I rarely agreed with Kirk. His style was often sensationalist, and I found many of his arguments to be disrespectful. At times, I thought he carried himself as if he were more intelligent than the work he presented. Still, my response was never to wish him dead. At most, I wanted the chance to debate him, to push back on his words, and to test whether his ideas could stand.
That distinction matters. Kirk was not Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, or Medgar Evers. He was not a leader fighting for the liberation of an oppressed people. He was a commentator who built his career on sharp rhetoric and culture war politics. However, his assassination still matters, because once society begins to normalize celebrating the killing of those we dislike, the door opens for violence against anyone. Today, it may be a man whose politics you reject. Tomorrow, it could be someone whose fight you support.
Historical Context
Black people in America know this danger intimately. Too many of our leaders were murdered because their voices and strategies threatened power. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968 while fighting for racial and economic justice. Malcolm X was killed in 1965 after urging Black people to build strength and independence. Medgar Evers was murdered in 1963 for working to dismantle segregation. Fred Hampton was killed in a pre-dawn raid in 1969 that history records as an assassination. These were not abstract events. They were violent removals of voices that carried the hope of millions (History, 2018; National Park Service, 2020; National Archives, 2020).
The lesson is not that Kirk was on the same level as these leaders. The lesson is that when murder becomes an accepted way to handle disagreement, it does not stay confined to one person or one political side. Violence spreads. It eventually touches movements and communities that never expected to be targeted.
Comparison with Past and Abroad
Is this moment like the late 1960s? The answer is complex. The 1960s were marked by high-profile assassinations and state violence that created a shared national sense of instability. Today’s climate feels different. The threat is more dispersed. It comes not just from singular figures but from many directions, amplified by digital platforms and social media echo chambers.
Capitol Police reported 9,474 cases of threats against members of Congress in 2024, up from 8,008 in 2023 and far above 2017 levels, which were about one third of today’s totals (USCP, 2024; USCP, 2025). This suggests a wide net of hostility, not a few isolated cases. The tempo of danger is less about singular assassinations and more about a constant background of intimidation, harassment, and the possibility of violence.
International examples underscore the seriousness of this issue. In the United Kingdom, Member of Parliament Jo Cox was murdered in 2016, and Sir David Amess was killed in 2021, both while serving their constituents. In Japan, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated during a campaign speech in 2022. Italy endured its “Years of Lead” from the 1960s to the 1980s, where political murders and bombings claimed hundreds of lives (Time, 2016; Wikipedia, 2021; Wikipedia, 2022; Wikipedia, 2023). These examples show how quickly political violence can destabilize a society once it becomes normalized.
Current Data on Political Violence
Recent research makes the danger clear:
- Support for political violence. A nationally representative study found that about 26 percent of U.S. adults say violence is “usually or always justified” to achieve at least one political objective. While the numbers did not rise between 2023 and 2024, the baseline remains alarming (Wintemute et al., 2024).
- Threats to public officials. The U.S. Capitol Police investigated nearly 9,500 threats in 2024, illustrating the growing prevalence of hostility toward political figures (USCP, 2024; USCP, 2025).
- Persistent risk environment. Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, continue to warn that domestic violent extremists may target public officials and civic events. These are not temporary spikes; they represent a sustained threat climate (DHS, 2024; DHS, 2025).
- The Kirk case. In the Kirk shooting, officials recovered a high-powered bolt-action rifle and released footage of a person of interest. Authorities have not yet established a motive, but Utah’s governor described the killing as a political assassination (Reuters, 2025a; Washington Post, 2025; AP News, 2025).
Reflection
Violence does not defeat bad ideas. It does not heal divides. It only deepens them. Celebrating the death of someone we disagree with may feel momentarily satisfying, but it sets a precedent that endangers us all. History already shows us where this leads. When assassination becomes an acceptable form of politics, voices of hope and justice are often the ones silenced next.
This is not about fear. It is about clarity. We are living in unprecedented times where political violence is not a rare shock but a persistent risk. We must resist the temptation to applaud bloodshed. We must understand what it means for civic life when disagreement turns into death.
Thoughts Processed 