Maybe it is the gruesome suddenness of his death that has made so many people forget the realities of Charlie Kirk’s life. After the 31-year-old rightwing influencer was shot dead at a college campus appearance in Utah on Wednesday, many commentators rushed to condemn political violence, on the one hand, and to issue warm tributes to Kirk’s life, on the other. The former of these is legitimate: that political policy should not be determined by force, or political disagreements settled through homicidal violence, is a baseline precondition of not just a democratic form of government, but of any functional society. The latter, perhaps, can be explained by the admirable human impulse towards gentleness and reconciliation. The horror and shock of Kirk’s assassination prompted some to offer their generosity, and their sympathy, to the dead man.

Perhaps it was these noble gestures toward generosity and sympathy that led some commentators to be more laudatory to Kirk’s memory than an honest recounting of his life would allow. In the days following Kirk’s death, several bewilderingly inaccurate postmortem hagiographies have appeared, including from prominent voices on the left and center, that seem to wish that the tragedy of Kirk’s death could retroactively have given him a more honorable life.

The most egregious of these came from Ezra Klein, a center-left columnist at the New York Times known for his ability to channel and influence elite opinion. In a piece published the morning after Kirk’s death, titled Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way, Klein made a series of strained, bizarre and outright untrue assertions about Kirk’s career and character. Kirk, Klein argued, was, if anything, an example of civic virtue. “Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way,” Klein said. “He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective........

© The Guardian