Charlie Kirk, the conservative advocate who encouraged debate

I gotta admit, before I heard of, and later saw videos of his assassination I didn't pay much attention to Charlie Kirk. I had heard his name, and knew that he was a podcaster that Republicans admired, and that he was a Trump supporter.

But I didn't know how young he was(31 at the time of his death), or the fact that he had established a multi-million dollar organisation called Turning Point USA starting at the age of 18 with his "Prove Me Wrong" open debate booths. Maybe that lack of knowledge from my end, is a commentary on the echo chambers each of us often find ourselves in, whether you're on the Left or the Right.

In any case on Sept 10th morning, I woke to the disturbing news that he had been assassinated in a public setting at Utah University. The personal reports on social media were coming in hard and fast, with normal news outlets struggling to keep up. My friends, in the US that are devout Christians seemed to have a visceral reaction, willing God to perform a miracle to keep him alive. Most decent people believe he didn't deserve to be shot, although I've heard stories of some who reportedly celebrated his death. 

The shooting was horribly graphic and very much undeserved. In fact, no human being  deserves that for simply speaking their mind in a public setting. It's a very disturbing commentary on the polarisation of politics in the US, lack of sufficient security around the event, combined with the easy access to guns, that made such a tragedy possible. 

While I also felt his supporters' pain, their widespread reaction to this particular tragedy was unique, as I've never seen the right-wing react in such an emotional way to school shooting, where usually even more innocent lives are lost. In those cases they simply say "Thoughts and Prayers" and soon after that "we need to move on". In this case, the whole world was riveted for several days, and decent people on both sides, were sympathetic and empathetic to Kirk's wife and young family.

Speaking of guns, Kirk had a very non-compromising view of them. No matter the counter-argument that was brought forth by those debating him, he would always have a rigid view of allowing people to have guns. Some of these counterarguments included the fact that when the 2nd Amendment was drawn up, semi-automatics didn't exist, or that no other developed country besides the US has such a large volume of gun deaths, in general, or mass shootings in particular. 

Charlie would instead insist on dissecting the statistics, to point out that many of those deaths were suicide and gang violence. Ironically that's exactly the topic he was talking about when he was shot by someone with a high-powered rifle.

The conspiracy theories following the shooting flooded in quickly as well, with many noting that it was likely a professional sniper and a strange plane leaving the airport the same day, and others doing frame-by-frame analysis of the point of impact. The fact that it took 2 days to catch the perpetrator, and the fact that there was another person in the crowd claiming he had done it, added to the conspiracy theory frenzy.

The right-wing media seemed to automatically assume that it was someone on the Left that had done it, and they publicly denounced the "violent left" before the shooter was even identified. That's a very dangerous and irresponsible thing for major news organisations to do, but sadly, it seems to have become the norm.

For me, it got me curious as to what he could've said that got him shot. So I've since watched many of his videos, both in longer and shorter clips to get a solid idea of his stance on issues. I also researched his background and education a bit. So I'll go into those viewpoints a bit, as well as express my personal views on those subjects.

So starting with his background, Charlie's education went only as far as a semester in Community College, although he had applied to West Point military school which he didn't get accepted to. In many of his speeches, he denounces university education as a waste of money and time, calling it a "scam". He challenges those arguing for university education to name some basic amendments and what they stand for, or to name books from well known classic authors. Of course he has the upper hand here, since he's prepared, but it still highlights some gaps in the US education system, and the departure from knowledge seeking at a personal level, that was prevalent during periods such as the Enlightenment/Renaissance. Conversely those debating with him, will ask whether he can do advanced maths or physics. 

My view on this particular subject is that attending a university expands your cognitive capabilities, and can humble you in seeing how much knowledge is out there. So there is value in it, but if you're determined enough there's enough information out there in easily digestible format, that you can gain a lot of it without going to a University. It still doesn't mean though that you could become a successful doctor, or lawyer, without formal education, but for easier fields(eg IT) you can learn enough on your own to qualify for a professional job, and that job will then further your learning, provided that it's not monotonous.

At one point that he argued with a person that was concerned about being on the autistic spectrum, and he mentioned that he didn't see that as a weakness, but rather a superpower, which I thought was both  endearing and kind. He was also very fond of his children, and his marriage, and the positive effects that they had in his life. The third aspect that comes through clearly from his debates was his Christian faith and love of country. So it's not unfair to say that he was a Christian Nationalist, even though that term has various shades of meaning to different groups.

Attributable to his Christian faith, also meant that he took a hard-line on abortion, saying that abortion was never the right choice, and life begins at conception. There are a lot of counterarguments that pro-choice debaters brought up, including rape, incest, and health/life of the mother. In each case he stood firm and unwavering against abortion. All I'll say around my views of the issue, is that it's a complex issue. It's a life within a life, and a lot can go wrong between conception and delivery of a baby, so it needs some case-by-case evaluation. Putting limits on late-term abortion is smart, and making sure that men have to bear half of the responsibility of raising the child is smart as well. 

On immigration he again took a hard-line of deporting all illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they've been in the country, or whether they were contributing to society by working. Those debating him tried to point out that those same illegal immigrants often made up the majority of workers at the base layer of low-level jobs, while legal immigrants or citizens worked as their bosses. So deporting those workers wouldn't necessarily mean that Americans would take those same jobs, as they are gruelling and low-paid positions. Again he took a hard-line here, saying that if an illegal immigrant asked for quarter in his house, he would report them to ICE. He tried to make a distinction between "settlers" and "immigrants" in that settlers build a country, while immigrants just come to an already established country. And of course he is completely against birthright citizenship, arguing that some people get pregnant in another country, then travel to the US to have the baby for the purpose of citizenship. 

My views here are that I would probably get rid of birthright citizenship, but I would also make it easier for smart professionals to enter the US legally. Getting points for education and language ability as well as professional skill, has worked well for Canada, no reason why it shouldn't work for the US. But you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case, so if you want cheap workers from overseas, then you can't complain when they want to settle in your country and earn a living wage. Getting them to go through the legal process though is fair.

Charlie was also firmly against DEI(Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), and Affirmative Action, or the idea that people, should receive any preferential treatment based on race. He also didn't believe that white privilege exists. He famously, or rather infamously talked about worrying about a pilot's skills if they were black, because they didn't meet the same qualifications as a white person. He also mentioned that in the past 20 years Asians had more wealth gain than whites, but that nobody talks about that. He also mentioned that there should be no reparations made for past wrongs, including slavery. 

My thoughts here are that, you should absolutely make some reparations for past wrongs, ie. enslaving another race, and depriving them of education and voting rights, or decimating the native population as the original settlers to the US(and the larger Americas in general) had done. However those reparations need to have a clear dollar value amount and end date. At the same time though, you shouldn't try and erase the fact that it happened. So no matter how disturbing the material might be, it needs to be taught in schools. A positive thing here that NZ does, is to try and revive the native culture through language.

On crime Kirk repeatedly said that black Americans commit more crimes than white Americans. The statistics back him up on this, however I think some distinction needs to be made here between violent and non-violent crime. Not that either should be excused, but if your only crime was using marijuana for example, it shouldn't be categorised the same way as violent crime. And also the systemic problems of poverty and lack of opportunity need to be looked at. Another interesting anecdote that he noted in this space was that most rap songs that glorify violence, or having sex with multiple women. That I tend to agree with.He mentioned that he only allows his children to listen to classical music, and a few select shows(eg Dolly Parton).

He mentioned on many occasions how special and life-changing having a family and young children was. And how it was the role of the man to provide for his family, rather than sharing the work or the financial load. He further applied the concept of a lack of a father figure in many black American families, being a major source of problems. I'm not sure around the statistics for that, so I will need to dig a bit deeper there.

There was another short debate where someone said that billionaires are ruining the world. He defended the billionaire, and asked if the person had actually met one. My thoughts on this, some billionaires are pro-humanity but many are not. The fact that that level of wealth exists in the first place, points to extreme wealth concentrations, which through mergers and acquisitions continue to get worse. So on a planet with limited natural resources that are close to depletion, the existence of billionaires is not a positive. Once we can get beyond this planet, that may change, but until then they'll continue to expand their wealth, while keeping a tight clamp on wages, which is to the detriment of humanity.

On healthcare when someone asked whether the government, or extremely rich private people such as billionaires couldn't commit more into healthcare costs, including mental health, Charlie said that churches should take that role, not the government. That's an interesting take, but I reckon if all government-subsidised healthcare was eliminated, churches would have a hard time picking up the slack. The other point to be made here, is would he be comfortable with all the religions coexisting, or would he insist that Christianity take a precedence. The Right, and Charlie included tend to be very critical of Islam.

He also said that homeless is not a problem of money(capital) but rather mental illness or drug dependence. While that's not entirely untrue, it's most often Republicans that cut funding for any mental illness assistance programs. So again, if you really want to solve a problem you have to put money towards it, and unfortunately some problems are systematic as well, so not just down to an individual who may have hereditary mental issues, but the lack of a support network, or access to medicine. 

One key point where I draw the line on this issue of mental illness is that if turn violent, then you don't and shouldn't have excuses, and deserve the punishment that you get for any crimes you commit. At the same time, pushing society towards desperation, by continuing to raise prices for basic goods beyond what working people can afford is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. Looking at statistics, much of the crime is recidivist crime, commited by those that have been let out of prison, even for violent crime, which should not be happening.

One other point that Charlie brought up was there is a universal objective code of morality. That is a very interesting topic, so I'll probably do another post on that, but I think all good humans agree that killing another innocent human is bad. The line gets blurrier when revenge for an accident or a crime is perpetrated as a vigilante justice.Some will go a step further an argue that killing animals is bad as well.Charlie didn't believe that, based simply on the fact that we breed them. So another interesting topic to explore further. He believed that if you know someone(ie. God) is always watching you and your actions, you'll be a better person, than without that belief.

He had a mocking view against veganism. His conspiracy theory around this was that soybeans contain estrogen, so the tendency to phase meat out of human diets was tied to a malicious intent of lowering the testosterone levels of males in the population. I certainly don't believe that, and am a supporter of eating less meat to reduce our impact on the planet.

He also seemed frustrated and somewhat obsessively focused on trans people, considering how small a percentage of the population they represent. Charlie's recurring question to his audience was "What is a Woman" and enjoyed watching his liberal audience struggle to answer. His view was that you shouldn't change your body to match your body, but instead change your mind to match your body, and that sex and gender is the same, and a woman is someone with two X chromosomes.

This is an interesting topic, and honestly I don't know enough about it. I can imagine that historically there's been effeminate men, and more masculine women, but the trend to actually have surgery to change your sex, seems new. I'll do some more reading here.

On the war in Ukraine, he said the US had already spent over 30 billion dollars, and shouldn't spend more, and that the whole war was a "meat grinder" that had destroyed the lives of young men in Ukraine, and further antagonising Putin could lead to nuclear war. He also mentioned that Europe should be footing more of the bill. Ultimately, he was a lot more worried about China than Russia as an adversary to the US.

My thoughts here are that any war is bad for humanity, and Russia started this particular one, so they should be forced to pull back and a peace treaty should be negotiated. The problem in trying to do that, is the one country that would have the power to stand up to Russia has believed a lot of the propaganda coming from their end. And they've built many military bases coming close to Russia's border. So Ukraine in my opinion is the pawn in a proxy war.

I also watched the tribute that Erika Kirk gave, and thought her speech was heartfelt and touching, especially the bit about forgiving the shooter. If we had more people like her in charge of the government, maybe some progress around understanding and coming together would be made. The current president has no interest in uniting the country, in fact through his divisive rhetoric, he continues to try and tear the fabric of the country apart, which is disappointing to witness. So I don't understand how Charlie could be supporter of Trump, whose only God is money, as a person.

In summary, Charlie was a staunch supporter of conservatism in its various areas. I don't think he was a racist, but he did try and minimise the impact that slavery and colonisation had had on other races, and wanted to simply move on from dwelling on that. His efforts to encourage debate should be celebrated, but I don't think he was a martyr, and some of the suggestions of a public holiday in his name are probably going too far. The memorial for his death is something that should also be held for the victims of school shootings, and televised in the same way, not just glossed over. Rest in Peace.