As with so many political assassinations across the Atlantic – the Kennedys, Martin Luther King –Charlie Kirk’s killer is likely to be some deranged individual, a lone wolf driven by fevered delusions, perhaps, or a sick, mentally ill person. His murder, though, is anything but mundane. Kirk was not just another talking head; he was a phenomenon, a young firebrand, a brilliant, charismatic, honourable man who believed in discourse over violence, who repeatedly warned us that, when we stop talking with those we disagree with, civil wars start. That he was also a young husband and father, whose children will never get to know their dad, is heartbreaking.

Kirk helped drag conservatism into the digital age, making it accessible, shareable, and above all, youthful

Kirk stood out as a charismatic, relentless, natural orator who could command a room or a rally with equal ease. Through Turning Point USA, he mobilised thousands of young conservatives on college campuses, transforming what had been bastions of progressive orthodoxy into battlegrounds for ideas. Suddenly, being conservative did not mean being old, out of touch, or resigned to the slow march of history. It meant being bold, engaging, and yes, entertaining.

Some on the left saw the likes of Kirk as provocateurs, enablers of extremism, while the old guard on the right sometimes viewed them as upstarts diluting the purity of conservative doctrine. But Kirk’s impact was undeniable. He helped drag conservatism into the digital age, making it accessible, shareable, and above all, youthful.

Kirk’s trajectory bore striking resemblances to that of Edgar Graham, the brilliant young academic lawyer from Northern Ireland whose life was cut short in the 1980s. Both were in their prime –Graham was just 29 when he was gunned down, Kirk, 31, just a few years older – men who embodied the promise of intellectual vigour in the service of their causes.

Graham, a lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast and a rising star in the Ulster Unionist Party, believed fervently in the non-violent exchange of ideas. He debated with eloquence and empathy,........

© The Spectator