Two days ago, on Wednesday, Sept. 10, Charlie Kirk, political commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, was murdered while speaking at Utah Valley University. It is difficult to say much about the situation surrounding his death, considering that no legitimate suspect has been identified or official motive has been discovered, though it may be easy to assume. The impact of this event and how it has reverberated across the entire Western political landscape is the only clear fact that can be confirmed. On that point, there has been one clear reaction to this event which has dominated the narrative. From all across the political spectrum, so many have rushed to make the claim that this type of political violence has “no place in our country.”
Yet, is that really the case?
Let me be clear, this is not advocating for political violence. Rather, this is an article that seriously asks the question: What really is its place in this country and against whom is it typically focused? The answer requires redefining what we consider to be “violence” and what is “political,” because it’s not just a lone assassin with a gun.
We’re conditioned to understand only specific types of acts as being “violent,” as our entire culture is focused on violence that is purely interpersonal and physical. The man behind the gun or knife is violent; the mugger and rapist are especially violent in their brutality. A punch, kick or hit are the easiest things for us to understand as violent, because the harm and violation is obvious. The thing is, these aren’t the only types of violence out there, because harm is far more varied. As the University of California Davis Centers for Violence Prevention puts it, violence is really any use of physical force or power that causes “injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”
The same lesson applies to political violence, which is typically even more stringently construed to focus on interpersonal, physical violence only related to some highly politicized subject. We understand hate crimes are political because they deal with race, or gun violence as being political because guns are frequent subjects of debate in courts and legislation. Even the murder of a man like Charlie Kirk is political because he was a public-facing, elite figure that does political work. However, for example, the quiet starvation of a homeless man on the street is not political; it is simply death. It’s a tragedy, as our society’s current understanding puts it.
The disconnection from the political world makes it so that it cannot be attributed to the political or economic elite that direct the government. This lack of perceived “violence” makes it so that there is no culprit or offender to be angry toward. In turn, there is no response or action.
Yet, we can see that this ought not be the case because homelessness or hunger is not without its political context. When our government creates policies that increase unhoused populations, purposefully underfunds resources for them or even criminalize their existence, these are political decisions. When those decisions lead to “injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,” that becomes political violence.
When Flint, Michigan’s poisoned water crisis was ignored by all levels of government for over a decade, leading to thousands of children having impaired brain development and 12 deaths, that was political violence. When politicians support a healthcare system that causes 45,000 deaths per year because people cannot afford health insurance, that is political violence. The same applies to all those who are harmed because they are denied coverage by insurance companies themselves; any company which would withhold care for someone for the sake of profits is incredibly violent. When politicians send billions of dollars to the genocidal regime of Israel and defend its murder of Palestinians, that is a form of violence. The point remains the same. The idea that “political violence has no place in America” is completely absurd. Since the genocide of the indigenous peoples which birthed this nation, it has been built on blood and violence.
What’s the difference, then, between the socially acceptable examples described above and the unacceptable murder of Charlie Kirk?
The target.
The type of violence that a man like him puts out is against people who we allow to be targeted. There’s been a lot of rhetoric about how Kirk was just a man stating his views, but to say that he wasn’t also incredibly violent as well would absolutely miss the point. Kirk founded Turning Point USA and has been one of the most powerful political voices in America for more than a decade. Although he may not have been an elected official, the work he did was crucial to the political direction of the GOP and the far-right political sphere. He was integral in a system that helped further extreme violence against queer people, Palestinians and other racial minorities — schoolchildren too, considering his ready defense of gun rights.
However, since this violence is part of the status quo that our government dictates, hidden in policy papers, think tanks, rallies and official speeches, it is acceptable. So long as the state maintains its monopoly on violence, there is no limit to how murderous it can be. It is understood as what is “normal” in society – and, what is normal is not to be disrupted. As much as our political pundits may wax romantic about their beliefs on political violence in this country, the answer is that it’s completely acceptable and normal. It is a violent status quo we live in, and the only unacceptable violence is that which challenges it.
What an ignorant hateful person you are Tomas. Why is it that you NEVER mention Hamas’ role in the suffering and death of Palestinians? Hamas is a terrorist death cult. They deliberately put civilians in harms way. They do not care a whit about human life, not of Jews, Israelis or Palestinians. There is plenty to criticize about the Israeli government’s actions but if anyone is to blame for the absolute despair and death of Palestinians it is Hamas. Since you never mention their role in the tragedy that THEY started, I can only assume you are a Hamasnik and a Jew hater.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
People like you, linking israel to judaism create jew hate, because it makes all jews genocidal.
Warsaw ghetto resistance was a terrorist death cult too?
also, israeli government i carrying out the genocide, not hamas, you are dumb hasbara machine, using jews to carry the interest of a few in power.
Reading your piece gives me hope that real journalism is still out there–mainstream media is not willing to go deeply into the reasons for today’s events. They’ve become too commercialized. Keep using your brains, voices, and search for the truth–our future depends on it.
Tomas: Have you ever once called for peace, or for lowering the temperature? No. All you do is make excuses for violence and lend your bully pulpit to others who do the same. It’s a shame that the DC opinion pages continue to be a gutter of nihilism.
PS: Why is there not a new opinion editor this year?