The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal writes wisely about the murder of Charlie Kirk. A slice:
At the same time, the political rhetoric is at a pitch that could hardly be higher. Losing the next election means the end of America, each side says, and the political opposition is often portrayed as not merely profoundly wrong or mistaken but intentionally trying to destroy the country, shred the Constitution, institute fascist rule. The crazy rage on the political left is especially acute at the moment given Mr. Trump’s polarizing Presidency.
To some, this is all part of the partisan game. Disturbed listeners are less capable of separating rhetoric from reality.
Political figures from both parties denounced the attack on Kirk Wednesday, as they should. But for Mr. Trump, while this is a moment of personal sadness, it is also an opportunity for leadership.
Also writing wisely about Charlie Kirk’s murder are the Editors of National Review. A slice:
Kirk’s rise came during an era when younger leftists abandoned the free-speech values that their ideological predecessors once espoused. It featured escalating attacks on conservative speakers — efforts to cancel them, to shout them down, to throw objects at them, to make threats. Despite all of this, Kirk continued to tour college campuses, to take hostile questions, and to engage with people who passionately disagreed with him. He did his ideological adversaries the favor of taking their questions seriously. This alone was a significant contribution to our civil society.
Then, on Wednesday, Kirk was shot and killed while on stage fielding a question about shootings by transgender individuals.
In a free republic, citizens are supposed to resolve their differences by arguing passionately with one another and then voting for public executives and lawmakers. Political violence is a direct threat to the foundations of our free society, and it must be condemned by all people of goodwill, with no throat-clearing or “buts.”
And here’s Reason‘s Robby Soave. A slice:
The murder of an extremely influential political figure is usually an occasion for reckless commentary from all sides of the political spectrum. One MSNBC commentator odiously implied that Kirk brought this on himself by employing hateful rhetoric. Meanwhile, some right-wing figures clearly see his assassination as an opportunity to launch a broad assault against all sorts of political enemies.
It is during moments like this, when the temptation for ghoulish overreach is most appealing to political figures, that it is helpful to keep one thing in mind: In the U.S., political violence is blessedly rare. People do not generally kill one another because they disagree about politics. That’s a good default status, and one worth preserving. There would be no better way to honor Kirk’s love of debate than to remind everyone that Americans should settle their differences with words, not violence.
