The recent assassination of leading political figure Charles J. Kirk shines a spotlight on so many of our society’s problems. From our propensity for violence to our inability to listen to others, modern society faces enough defects to warrant a recall. Perhaps no problem was illuminated quite as well as the political divide evident in our youth.
Charlie Kirk was known to some as a radical, far-right, political pundit. He was known to even more as a beacon of truth, an unapologetic Christian advocate for complementarianism. I am not going to try to tell you that he was politically moderate or somehow “played by the rules” set by society. In fact, quite the opposite.
What he was most known for, above all, was exposing who made the rules. Instead of fighting the system, he showed who the system was. From cancel culture to selective compassion, he didn’t hesitate to call it like he saw it.
Now, we are seeing what has recently been referred to as the “Charlie Kirk Effect”. College campuses across the country saw an explosive increase in Mass attendance. Historically blue states like California and New York had GOP voter registration surge, particularly in the youth (18-24) demographic. Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the organization that Charlie Kirk founded, reports over 50,000 requests to start chapters across the country. As Politico’s Andrew Howard and Ben Johansen put it, Kirk’s assassination “has awakened an army of believers”.
Heightened political awareness and activism is not unique to the political right, as the left has a significant younger political base, much more decentralized, but still significant. There is no TPUSA or Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) equivalent on the left, but they do have some Kirk-like figures. Hasan Piker, Ana Kasparian, and Kyle Kulinski are just a few that come to mind. Again, none of these political commentators hold the same fame or reputation as Kirk does.
While political assassinations are the biggest logs in the political fire burning within our youth, things like cancel culture, selective compassion, and the left’s aggressive campaign towards socialism serve to chip away at what unity we had left. Yes, I believe that those on the political left becoming more liberal triggered an equal response on the right, sparking a new age of traditional conservatism. This is inherently a major problem, as a whole generation of Americans are growing up focusing more on our differences than what we have in common. Everyone seems to hold a place of moral superiority that exists in their own reality. I am guilty of this.
The biggest perpetrator of this evident political divide in America is the 21st century’s media, social media. As mentioned above, political commentators such as Hasan Piker, Ana Kasparian, and Kyle Kulinski on the left, and Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, and Micheal Knowles on the right, are partly to blame for fostering this divide. Perhaps what carries the most weight is the interactions with these commentators and the, for lack of a better word, propaganda disseminated across the internet that serves to fuel a sense of pride in a niche political philosophy and a hatred of opposing views. To be clear, I am not advocating in any way for our youth to become less politically active, and I am certainly not advocating for anyone to concede or give up any of their faithfully held beliefs. Rather, I am suggesting that we need to learn how to effectively communicate with those that we disagree with, both inside the political realm and out.
How do we bridge this gap without sacrificing any of our sincerely held beliefs? Civil discussion about topics we might disagree on, especially those where we could be more educated. I saw this in action this past weekend when I attended the Center for Ethics’ Free Speech in Schools Colloquium. Thirteen students with various political backgrounds and majors came together respectfully to have meaningful discussions about free speech and the Supreme Court. Our case discussions ranged from the famous Tinker v. Des Moines to the lesser-known niche cases of “Bong hits for Jesus” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding”. We asked thought provoking questions like “Should we legally enforce societal norms?”, “When does an ideology become reality?”, and “What truths are truly self-evident?”. Overall, it was an extremely rewarding experience, allowing me to recognize how right Kirk was. The solution was always talking with one another. As George Bernard Shaw famously said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”. It should be noted that Shaw, outside this one quote, is the antithesis of my worldview.
Being exposed to ideas that you don’t agree with is extremely beneficial, molding you into an effective communicator for life. This is the legacy that I hope TPUSA and YAF maintains. Events like Kirk’s Prove Me Wrong help our generation to facilitate respectful dialogue with those with whom we disagree.
Some will joke about an impending second civil war, but I truly believe that we are closer to this theoretical war than most care to admit. This theoretical war will be anything but civil. I don’t believe that we will ever get to this point, but it is critical to recognize our destination as a society. There is (hopefully) enough spatially aware young Americans on both sides, to help close this vicious divide before any more violence ensues. I hope and pray that we may never see another political assassination in our lifetime.
May Charlie’s death be a Turning Point for America.