In the days since the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, the overwhelming response on the left has been shock and horror. No one of prominence has justified the killing; hundreds, from Democratic Party leadership on down, have condemned political violence.

But below the unanimity is a subtler debate: not about how to respond to Kirk’s death, but how to think about his life.

On the one hand are sober commemorations of Kirk’s approach to democratic politics. Kirk, these authors say, had an admirable commitment to free discourse — going on tours where he would debate all sorts of people on often-hostile college campuses. He was killed while doing exactly this, answering a question about mass shootings.

I recently watched a video, posted on his own channel, of him debating a student about eating animals. The student easily beat Kirk, who wasn’t prepared for the arguments of a pro-life vegan weightlifter. Yet Kirk didn’t shirk from the challenge, taking the young man seriously and trying to rebut as best he could. There’s something admirably democratic about that.

He wasn’t just a guy who went around debating, but a plugged-in political operative close to the Trump White House who actively promoted extremism.

The other side argues that this portrayal leaves out crucial context. Kirk’s political activities, they argue, were often destructive of the democratic process he’s been suggested to embody. He wasn’t just a guy who went around debating, but a plugged-in political operative close to the Trump White House who actively promoted extremism. Mourning him uncritically whitewashes his role in the degradation of our politics.

Kirk vehemently defended Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election and sent seven buses of activists to the January 6 rally that culminated in the storming of the Capitol. His organization, Turning Point USA, maintained a “professor watch list” designed to chill left-wing speech on campus and lionized vigilante killer Kyle Rittenhouse. He endorsed

© Vox