Public Displays of Disaffection By Keith Porteous
I didn’t agree with Charlie Kirk’s words and ideas, but I can take no pleasure in a conservative politician being murdered in front of his wife and children. There are those who are publicly celebrating this political assassination, which is their right, but what does it say about their own character? In printing Kirk’s obituary, the centrist New York Times had to publish a “correction”, retracting an attribution to an offensive statement that Kirk didn’t make. In-his-obituary! Another centrist publication, The Nation magazine has made the same mistake, in falsely crediting Kirk for positions he didn’t take. All of this undermines the cause of the grassroots Left.
My objections to Kirk’s ideological position is his Christian conservatism, where he used non-secular rationalizations to justify his positions on women’s reproductive rights and gay marriage. Contrary to false accusations made on the internet, Kirk did not support many of the kinds of discrimination he was accused of, however, he did vociferously oppose affirmative action and he objected to the right to gender affirming medically assisted transitions prior to legal adult status. He was a major supporter of the deplorable Donald Trump, and everyone has the right to despise Charlie Kirk and his offending views. Publicly celebrating the murder of any person is exercising your right to be an assh*le, and it can only serve one purpose. I can’t think of a more twisted and self serving public display of disaffected “virtue.”
Charlie Kirk espoused the corrupt and tired tropes of “free market” and “moral” conservatism. Many of the most vocal centrist liberals (who falsely identify as Leftists), have never really examined Charlie Kirk and his views closely, and instead rely on a meme generating echo-chamber to label him a “fascist.” This follows the pattern of centrist liberals calling anyone they disagree with a fascist, or a bigot, and they often smear the character of their ideological adversaries instead of debating them on the merits of their ideas, or lack thereof. It should not be that difficult to do so. Objectionable conservative ideas have been around for a very long time. Political assassination is not a successful tactic in advancing the cause of civil rights for all.
By weakly ignoring their own principles, calling everyone they disagree with a fascist, centrists dilute the actual meaning of the word fascist. Centrist liberal hyperbole is red meat for conservative populists, and it feeds their well financed movements. Ironically, in the emotional expressions of their objection to conservative populism that advocates for “small government/strong borders” and economic nationalism, the centrists advocate for policies that are increasingly authoritarian, believing they can fight fiery reactionary speech with fiery calls for censorship, lawfare, and wait for it……that same economic nationalism. I consider Charlie Kirk to be a passive aggressive and retrograde conservative assh*le; but I don’t celebrate any person’s murder.
Go ahead and express yourselves, but be careful that you don’t take on the low vibrational mindset of those you claim to oppose. Or am I a day late and a dollar short?
