CONFLICT IN AFTERMATH OF KIRK KILLING. There are two epic battles going on in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. One is the battle to define Kirk. The other is the battle to define his killer. 

There are significant voices trying to portray Kirk as a hateful, divisive figure. At the same time, there are voices trying to portray Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, as a confused, apolitical young man. In simplest terms, the point for both is to absolve Kirk’s political adversaries — Democrats, the Left, progressives, antifa, trans warriors, furries, whatever — of complicity in Kirk’s death. If Kirk was divisive and hateful, then he might have, in some portion, brought his terrible fate on himself. And if the suspect was indeed confused and apolitical, then he was not acting in any directed way on behalf of an ideology that might then bear some blame for the assassination. 

It’s instant absolution for the Left: We didn’t do it, and even if we did, he kinda deserved it. 

On the question of defining Kirk, it’s important to remember that a number of the people trashing him in death trashed him in life. In 2024, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) condemned Kirk’s “fascist rallies.” In 2023, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) called Kirk a “white supremacist propagandist.” In 2024, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called Kirk a “dangerous demagogue.” And in 2023, Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) called him a “racist grifter.”

After Sept. 10, some of Kirk’s most vociferous critics felt reluctant to keep it up in the immediate aftermath of his brutal murder. Others did not. “He was a reprehensible, hateful man,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) last week.........

© Washington Examiner