Charlie Kirk was assassinated on 10 September at an event at Utah Valley University. Already a controversial figure- having co-founded Turning Point USA, having suggested that the passage of Civil Rights Act 1964 was a mistake, and famously remarking that abortion is ‘worse than the Holocaust’- his legacy and political career has been shrouded with even more controversy posthumously. I would argue that his death has exacerbated division in the US, and that many Republican politicians have attempted to capitalise off of his killing by pushing their political agenda and by starting a culture war.

Immediately following Kirk’s death, Trump sought to place the blame on the ‘radical left’, despite the fact that the shooter’s identity was still unclear at this point. He added, “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree”. This ironic hypocrisy is completely lost on Trump and his allies, given Trump’s dehumanising rhetoric against immigrants and his heavily inflammatory comments about his political opponents, referring to them as ‘vermin’. In fact, Trump made a point to stress that although Kirk wanted the best for his political opponents, he hates his opponents and doesn’t want the best for them.

The day of Kirk’s death, Trump ordered government buildings and the military to fly their flags at half-staff. The following week, Congress passed a bill naming 14 October ‘National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk’. Additionally, Oklahoma State Senators introduced legislation that would require every public college to maintain and build a statute of Kirk. In this way, it seems that many Republicans have been weaponising his death to further their political agenda, particularly within the framing of him as a ‘free speech’ martyr.

I would also argue that this guise of fighting for ‘free speech’ which has been linked to the public response to Kirk’s death is completely facetious, given that as a result of his death, authoritarian tactics have been deployed to punish those who disagreed with Kirk’s views and his subsequent martyrdom. A bill introduced by US representative Derrick Van Orden would prohibit the federal government from funding any organisations or local governments ‘that employ individuals who condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism’. Despite the explicit reference of ‘political violence’ used in the Bill, Van Orden is exploiting this law to condemn people who have views that differ from that of the MAGA movement. He even suggested that it would be used to defund cities which employ people critical of Kirk and his views. According to an analysis by NPR, over thirty people across the country have been fired, put on leave, investigated, or faced calls to resign because of social media posts criticising Kirk or celebrating his death. 

There is a particular intensity surrounding the public’s response to Kirk’s death, and nothing represents this more clearly than a website, set up anonymously, called ‘Expose Charlie’s Murderers’, which gathers the names, locations and employment of people deemed to have been celebrating his death on social media posts. The right-wing’s ‘defence’ of his legacy has become an offensive to attack people who do not subscribe to the same views as them.

It seems to me that the divisions in America have always been very present- political violence is nothing new in the US. However, these have been weaponised by Trump and the MAGA movement. He has successfully set a very heavy agenda on the differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’, whether that be against the ‘radical left’, the ‘illegal aliens’, ‘fake news’ or the ‘elites’. Particularly since the controversy around the 2020 election results, which eventually reached the tipping point of the Capital attack of 6 January, Americans increasingly define their identity through partisan allegiance. The gap between Americans, fuelled by politicians, is widening.

A study looking at why people affiliated with their party found that about 78% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats said that a major reason they identify with or lean towards their party is “the harm the other party’s policies would do to the country”. This represents a much wider problem in America now: people are quicker to identify themselves by contrasting it with what they are not. I would argue that many people who would consider themselves as belonging to the same party, whether that be Republican or Democrat, in fact don’t have much in common with one another and have very different views on what is best for the country. They instead have so much hatred for the opposing group- intensified by social media and politicians- that they simplify their political views under one of two ‘camps’, leaving very little common ground for Americans to agree on.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox called for the political temperature to be turned down, and urged Americans to “log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, and do good in the community”. What is such a simple message is a very important sentiment that seems to have been lost throughout this whole debate. Americans should learn to come together in times of crisis, and they should begin to look for areas where they have similarities rather than focusing on only their partisan differences, in order to move their country forward.

If you liked this, read more from Redbrick Comment:

Your Party: Will Reform UK Finally Have A Worthy Opponent?

Killer Labubus: What Does The Influx of Carcinogenic Dolls Say About The Current State Of The World

The Removal of Angela Rayner from Office: Deserved, or a Sad Loss for Women in Politics?