Cancel culture is only bad when we do it 

The recent assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk during an event held at Utah Valley University has prompted a wave of reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. On the right, the discourse has been predictably dominated by outrage. On the left, however, the conversation has been much more varied. While most on the left agreed that political violence of any kind is unacceptable, the degree to which Kirk’s death was treated as a tragedy was not as well agreed upon. While more moderate elements of the left expressed sadness at Kirk’s death, some further to the left were less eager to frame this event as some great loss. Understandably, many saw the assassination not just as some spontaneous act of senseless violence, but as the logical continuation of the very rhetoric Kirk had made a career out of expressing. After all, this was the same person who spent over a decade spreading harmful lies regarding just about every marginalized group in existence. In fact, just moments before he was shot, he was perpetuating the dangerous lie that transgender people are more prone to being mass shooters than cisgender people. This wasn’t an outlier, either: Take any speech he’s given, any video or podcast he’s been in, any piece of content he’s had a hand in creating, and you’ll find the same type of hateful and violent rhetoric.  

As one would imagine, these two wildly different reactions, one of fury and outrage, one of sober reflection and acknowledgement of Kirk’s violent rhetoric, were bound to clash. The first few hours following the assassination were mostly absent of fighting, with the confusion and shock created by the event serving to temporarily distract from the disagreement. That peace only lasted a short while, though, and soon the two perspectives came into conflict. The right, upon seeing any reaction other than abject horror and grief at the death of their newly martyred hero, flew into a rage. Seemingly anyone who dared to speak honestly about Kirk’s history of stochastic terrorism was met with swift retribution. Attacks ranged from the typical childish insults characteristic of right-wing online behavior to doxxing and personal threats. Soon, websites were created to report anyone seen to criticize Kirk so that their criticism could be reported to their employer in an effort to get them fired. Demands from conservative broadcasters even resulted in the temporary suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for what can only be reasonably described as mild criticism directed towards the right. In short, conservatives did everything they could to ensure people were scared to speak out against them. 

Aside from being generally unreasonable and unnecessarily cruel, these efforts at silencing criticism were eerily reminiscent of something we’d seen before. Conservatives’ behavior in the days following the assassination was an example of the same kind of “cancel culture” they had expressed such immense outrage about for years before. Every tactic used by the right to quell dissent was something they had long accused the left of using to “cancel” right-wing figures. Scarcely did a conservative figure lose their job or even simply experience some negative consequences for their hateful rhetoric without hordes of right-wing voices screaming “cancel culture”, yet here they were, making every effort to ensure anyone who stepped a toe out of line was swiftly punished for their transgressions. This contradictory behavior begs the question: Do they even see the hypocrisy? Is this right-wing cancel culture the result of cynicism and intentional ignorance of its ideological contradictions, or is it simply a complete lack of perspective that drives it? I think the answer to that depends on who you’re talking about.  

For popular figures, TV personalities, politicians, podcasters, etc., the answer is fairly obvious. These people have made careers out of creating outrage and fear and they’re more than smart enough to see that their actions are in direct conflict with the values of “free speech absolutism” they proclaim to hold. They stand to benefit immensely from a culture of fear and silence surrounding criticism of the right-wing groups currently plunging the US into fascism. They’ll do whatever is necessary to make sure that fear thrives, regardless of such insignificant matters as “hypocrisy.” For the everyday conservative, however, I believe the motivations and thought processes are different. Conservatism is fundamentally an ideology that discourages criticism and introspection. A belief system based on the desire for everything to stay the same is, by nature, opposed to self-examination and criticism of one’s own beliefs. It stands to reason, then, that conservatives without the cynical motivations of power-hungry politicians and celebrities would see no issue with what they’re doing. It would require some measure of self-examination to conclude that what they’re doing is wrong, but self-criticism is antithetical to conservatism. 

So, what can we do about this? How can it possibly be communicated that conservatives’ actions contradict every value they claim to hold? Honestly, I don’t know. It seems every channel available has been used to attempt to point out this hypocrisy, usually to little or no success. I don’t have an immediate solution to that. What’s clear is that this dilemma is an integral part of repairing the American consciousness and returning to — or perhaps finally arriving at — an environment of mutual effort towards the common goal of making life better for all Americans.  

Featured photo from unsplash.com