By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, while many focus on his role as a free-speech advocate, a more complete picture is needed. While he engaged in public debate, Kirk’s influence was intertwined with the promotion of falsehoods, racism, and bigotry, including spreading election conspiracies. Despite his efforts, Kirk’s legacy cannot be separated from his embrace of extremist rhetoric and his role in undermining American democracy through deceitful tactics. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate his actions, and not shy away from them, as a part of a critical review of his life.
Read the original article here
No, Charlie Kirk Was Not Practicing Politics the Right Way. The immediate reaction to his death reveals a lot about the tactics he employed and the impact they had. The idea that his approach to political discourse was somehow virtuous is simply not supported by his actions. Rather, his methods were characterized by a series of manufactured gotcha moments designed to provoke outrage rather than foster meaningful debate. He was a master of the soundbite, not a serious thinker, and his primary goal was to create an illusion of strength and intellectual superiority.
His impact on the political landscape was largely negative. The dissemination of his inflammatory rhetoric has helped to normalize dangerous and hateful ideologies. His approach did little to encourage the evaluation of evidence. Instead, people are trained to just react — which means affect and poise are paramount, nothing more. He knew the ideological judo throws required to seemingly disarm his opponents, but he was more of a mesmerist than a debater. He knew how to produce the illusion of ideological strength and soundness, but it was just layers of smoke cast over base biases at any cost.
The narrative of his martyrdom is already being spun, but it’s unlikely to resonate with anyone who truly understands his impact. It is important to remember that the harm he caused was significant. He was a provocateur and often an instigator. He often denigrated the rights of many different groups. His words carried weight, and they were used to attack and demean. To call this “practicing politics the right way” is a profound distortion of reality.
The tendency of some to portray Kirk as a victim of the “radical left” is a cynical attempt to deflect from the actual issues at hand. The fact remains that the United States has a chronic gun problem, and Republicans, to include Kirk, have repeatedly blocked progress on solving it. Moreover, domestic extremism is disproportionately committed by right-wing radicals. They’re eager to exploit these incidents to perpetuate certain stereotypes and spread narratives that associate immigrants, minorities, the LGBTQ community, Muslims and their political opponents with violence, “domestic terrorism” and criminality.
Kirk’s rhetoric often employed divisive and inflammatory language, and his actions contributed to a climate of hostility and violence. Consider his own words, which reveal a deep well of prejudice and hatred. His words were often deeply personal and aimed to demean the very existence of others. His public statements show him to be a promoter of violence and harm.
His tactics of political engagement also did not serve the public good. He was more of an activist than a politician, using social media to spread rage bait and generate income. He didn’t improve anyone’s life. His supporters’ reactions to criticism of him reveal the true nature of the movement he helped to build.
The attempt to portray Kirk as a champion of free speech also rings hollow. He did not engage in a genuine exchange of ideas; he was often selling hate and getting paid. The very notion of characterizing his approach as “practicing politics the right way” is a distortion of reality. It’s critical to recognize the damage he caused and to challenge the notion that his methods were anything other than destructive.