|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JALEN ELROD
***
There’s a perilous divide in our nation today. A divide that I believe, if left unchecked, threatens the Union in a way that hasn’t been seen in our lifetimes.
I’ve found myself in deep contemplation over the last few days regarding the killing of Charlie Kirk.
I’ve seen people on both sides post about the murder of Kirk who I never saw post about him before. Ever.
I’ve followed Kirk for years now as I do many conservative commentators or, more generally, people who don’t think like me. I have to. I’m a Black Millennial Democrat in ruby red South Carolina. I can’t afford to exist in a political or intellectual echo chamber.
Over the last few days, I realize a few things can be concurrently true:
- Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to be shot and killed. Gun violence in this nation is pervasive.
- Charlie Kirk was an unabashed racist who was frequently callous about other victims of violence.
Over the last several days, I’ve seen few posts from people I follow on social media and, on the news, nonchalant or callous about what happened to Kirk in Utah. But overwhelmingly, I’ve seen Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Bill Clinton to virtually every Democratic member of Congress, to party leadership both nationally and in South Carolina, to strategists and activists condemning the shooting of Charlie Kirk forcefully and unequivocally.
***
***
They are rightly condemning the murder of Kirk despite him saying “Joe Biden should be given the death penalty for his crimes” and that black women “don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously so they have to steal a white person’s slot.”
Those Democrats I follow condemned the murder of this man because, despite his views, he didn’t deserve to fall victim to gun violence. He didn’t deserve to be shot. He didn’t deserve to die.
Yet I can’t help but wonder why, when Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated and Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were shot in their home earlier this summer by Vance Boelter – a supporter of Donald Trump – there was virtual silence from MAGA supporters and Republicans who have been so vocal in their condemnation of what happened to Charlie Kirk?
Why did the President not condemn those assassinations in the Oval Office? Why did he not order U.S. flags to half-mast to honor them?
Why is there such outrage from conservatives about the shooting of Charlie Kirk but those same conservatives turn a blind eye and a deaf ear when Trump calls acknowledging the assassination of a Democratic elected official “a waste of time” just days after it occurred?
Why no cries of outrage when both Trump and Kirk made fun of the attempted murder of Nancy Pelosi’s husband, an 82-year-old man, back in October 2022? Where are the same outrage when the Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence was set ablaze by Cody Balmer in an attempted assassination of Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro?
It’s relevant in the days to come for a nation that could be hopelessly divided.
***
RELATED | THE UGLY HISTORY OF CELEBRATING DEATH
***
There’s rarely, if ever, any grace or empathy from the MAGA movement or conservatives when people they disagree with are met with political violence. That’s been made especially apparent this year.
If anything, all I have seen conservatives do in the aftermath of Kirk’s murder is use it as a pretext to launch a brazen assault on free speech.
I’ve seen this violence used to attack teachers and staff at schools and universities (who did little beyond post Kirk’s words verbatim) in a way that can only be described as blatant disdain for the First Amendment.
I’ve seen this murder and the actions of an individual shooter as a means to generalize “transgenders” or “the left” in a way they never seem to generalize white men who are, statistically, the most likely culprits of mass shootings in America. Especially when the facts are continuously changing and have changed since the shooting in Utah.
I never thought I’d see conservatives become champions of cancel culture but here we are.
It’s politicalization of violence by another means and it’s wrong.
I hope Democrats continue to uphold the standard that violence in our politics is repugnant and that gun violence in America is a scourge that must end.
***
RELATED | CLEMSON PILLORIED FOR WEAK RESPONSE TO FAR-LEFT HATE SPEECH
***
But Republicans, especially President Trump, must match that condemnation in ways they have not. Because condemnation of violence cannot be a partisan effort.
When President Trump says on Fox & Friends this last weekend when asked how radicalism on the right is fixed, he replies “I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble but I couldn’t care less…radicals on the right are often times are radical because they don’t want to see crime…radicals on the left are the problem,” that’s a major problem.
Moral outrage cannot be founded in hypocrisy and denial of truth.
If there is to be a return to normalcy, if that’s even possible, it must start with that.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox said last week that more Americans need to “get off social media and touch grass.”
Maybe he’s right. Because America’s political divide is taking us down a perilous course.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Jalen Elrod is a Greenville-based political strategist, having done over forty political campaigns and voter registration initiatives across the country. He is the former 3rd Vice Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, former 1st Vice Chair of the Greenville County Democratic Party, and President of the Young Democrats of Greenville County. He is a graduate of Leadership Greenville Class 47.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
7 comments
A few points of context and correction are in order, Mr. Elrod:
1. The assassin of the two Minnesota politicians you referenced was not a Trump supporter. He was an appointee of Democrat Tim Waltz. Said assassin also claimed (and while I don’t believe it, but it bears on his intentions) that he was ordered to do the “hit” by Waltz, and that his victims deserved it because they “crossed the isle” to vote with Republicans on some important reform bills. But While Trump did denounce those murders publicly multiple times, you are correct that he did not order flags to be flown at half mast, and he probably should have done that.
2. The burning of the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion was an event that Democrats have tried to somehow push onto the conservative right, because the Governor was a Democrat. The attempt falls short. The fact of the matter is that the attacker publicly criticized both Biden and Trump, had no official party registration, and stated himself that he was motivated by the fact that the Governor was a Jew, not a Democrat. The attacker was a left-leaning Palestinian sympathizer – I wouldn’t go so far as to say he supported Hamas though.
3. Your statement about Kirk claiming black women don’t have brain power and have to steal a white man’s spot is grossly out of context. His statement – made on July 13, 2023 on his namesake show- was talking about a Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in hiring, and he was responding to the statements of four specific black women who publicly stated that they could not have gotten their positions but for affirmative action: Joy Reid, Katangi Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee. Kirk’s specific words were as follows:
“You really have to wonder, in fact, you know, if, if we would have said three weeks ago, Blake, if we would have said that Joy Reed and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Katangy Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called the racist. But now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. They’re coming out and they’re saying I’m only here because of affirmative action. Yeah, we know you do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Kirk was referring to these four specific Black women throughout the segment, not making a generalization about all Black women. He framed his criticism around their alleged reliance on affirmative action and tied it to their public defenses of the policy, using “you” to address them collectively as examples in his argument against it.
LOL…I get that you REALLY want the assassin of the two Minnesota politicians to be a democrat, but he was a registered Republican as far back as 2004 and his anti abortion stance and religious zealotry would certainly make folks believe otherwise. But go ahead – spin the facts around so you can stay in your safe space.
I don’t “really” want anything but the facts. Cite yours, I will look at them and if you are accurate, I will correct myself.
I mean anyone who has spent any time on the internet was already used to seeing helicopter memes and the like by the alt right so seeing those same people demand blood through calls for civil war, a new crusade, or death camps for anyone engaged in wrongthink is wholly unsurprising. It isn’t even sudden radicalization, a lot of them have openly opined on which side would lose a civil war since Obama took office.
The oligarchs don’t really care about anyone within the working class, but they do appreciate the usefulness of people weaponizing their hate and further deteriorating solidarity. Workers fighting each other produces a clear loser, workers, and a clear winner, owners. Charlie’s entire professional life – assuming you can call a propaganda distributor a professional – was in service to those very same owners.
There is no war but class war.
The “what about us” argument doesn’t work. 21% of liberals condone violence to acheive a means to an end. 4% of conservatives do. We.Are.Not.The.Same
Nice try tho.
LOL – try again.
“The right-wing think tank Cato Institute published its own report last week in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, concluding that 3,599 people “have been murdered in politically motivated terrorist attacks in the United States from January 1, 1975, through September 10, 2025,” with 83% of those deaths occurring during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But, the report continued, “right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total” during that time period, accounting for killings by “those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.”
“Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total,” the Cato report continued. “Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies.”
Facts Matter, but go ahead give us your insight to why the right wing CATO institute is wrong.
All can be summed up by two words of Kasch Patel in his senate hearing : Dylan Roof?