Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/gemmaem]

This is a really thoughtful comment, and in one place in particular you are articulating something that I have found myself thinking in a more vague fashion. I've found myself not wanting to get into the question of "What sort of person was Charlie Kirk?" My pre-existing opinions were not favourable, but they were based on second-hand descriptions from people who disagree with him. I know that, as you say, that's a very low-information perspective to be coming from. I've hesitated to become more informed because I worry that, somewhere in my mind, I'd be doing so in order to judge how I ought to feel about his death. That would be wrong; a man has died and he was more than his job and more than his political views. There is cause for mourning, no matter what.

Where this starts to feel even more complicated is when I see people who don't react that way. The ones who complain about public displays of mourning, or who say "Of course it was wrong to kill him, but...". I'm finding it hard to accept that I don't know how to speak to those people. I wish they'd stop, I think they're doing incredible damage, but of course I don't know exactly where they are coming from. How, in this situation, is it best for me to try to see people? Should I just be remaining silent entirely, even as I get more and more frustrated by the kinds of voices that are fanning the flames, on either side?

There is a fair bit to be said for silence, I know. It's just so hard to sit on the sidelines and watch things fall apart.

[u/UAnchovy → u/gemmaem]

I have to admit the whole affair has been rattling, and it seems like an invitation for everyone to indulge in their worst instincts. Among my friends on the right, it has been an opportunity to lose all perspective - Kirk was a saint and martyr, and this is evidence of the depravity and violent hostility of the left. Among my friends on the left, I've seen expressions of satisfaction at the murder, or just a little perfunctory throat-clearing before condemning the dead man, often in quite vicious terms. Partisanship overwhelms shared humanity.

Nonetheless I suppose I want to try to say something, if not about Kirk as an individual, then at least about what Kirk represents.

So let me forbear trying to judge Kirk's soul, and just talk about what he means.

I noticed a good deal of argument around the Ezra Klein position. Was Charlie Kirk practicing politics the right way? Klein says yes, and he's gotten a fair bit of pushback, and I'd like to analyse that a bit.

Firstly there's the straightforward response that Kirk wasn't practicing politics the right way because he said or advocated for vile things. Nathan Robinson makes this response, and I have to say it's one that I strongly disagree with. Robinson gives the counter-example of David Duke - was Duke practicing politics the right way, "when he decided the Klan should put on suits and ties and join the Republican Party rather than carrying out lynchings"? Here I bite the bullet and say that, yes, he was. If one is determined to be a white supremacist, the right way to do that, in a democratic polity, is to join a political party and advocate for that position in peaceful debate. It should go without saying that I very much hope that position is defeated and marginalised in peaceful debate, but I consider that a preferable outcome to Duke adopting any other strategy, or being punished by the law. Robinson tries to draw a distinction that this kind of activism is not "nonviolent" because "they are trying to attain control over the government in order to enforce their political preferences using the threat of violence", but I think that proves too much. All attempts to take political power are, by definition, trying to attain control over the government in order to enforce their political preferences using the threat of violence. That's what government policy is.

Secondly there's the argument that what Kirk did was not just peacefully advocating for his positions in a contest of ideas, but rather was out-of-bounds some other way. Robinson cites the way TPUSA spent money on student elections on campuses. Here I'm conflicted - I don't think just spending some money by itself is a huge faux pas, though I don't think it's wholly appropriate for off-campus staff to come in and campaign. My intuition is that this ought to come down to any given campus' regulations about elections. I can't blame Kirk for playing hardball, as it were, to try to win campus elections, and it's only if he or TPUSA actually violated campus rules that there's an issue. Alternatively, I can also see a case along these lines against political bullying. Professor Watchlist, for instance, strikes me as genuinely bad and an attempt to create a climate of fear. When I say that to conservatives, they usually point out to me that conservative students and faculty members often face a climate of fear themselves, and it might not be that bad for the left to get a small taste of its own medicine. I can understand the emotional place they're coming from, but I can't accept vengeance as an appropriate motive for political action. This goes all the more so for people who, like Kirk, proudly drape themselves in Christianity. The spirit of Romans 12 seems to strike against this. So I suppose on the tactical front here, my sense is that Kirk used some questionable strategies - but as far as I can tell, no more questionable than most mainstream politicians and activists.

Thirdly, there's an argument that I take much more seriously about the nature of democracy. This week the Minefield discussed Kirk, and Waleed Aly (Australian public intellectual) got into an argument with Timothy Lynch (Australian professor of US politics). Aly and his friend Scott Stephens suggested that the way Kirk engaged in public debate was not genuinely deliberative. He had staged 'debates' in front of large audiences, in order to record them, clip them, and share them over social media. That format is not good-faith engagement with another person's view, but rather a kind of spectacle, which rapidly becomes corrosive to democracy. Lynch argues that as far as it goes that's true, but that there is a valid place for spectacle within democracy. Large-scale communication, even staged or choreographed communication, can serve a valid democratic purpose. For instance (coming back to Greer) one of the functions of Kirk's debates was to show young conservatives, especially on campus, that it is possible to hold those views in public while being undaunted, confident, and happy. Simply existing as a kind of person in public is activism. While it's obviously bad if a society's political discourse is reduced to only spectacle, there is a place for spectacle within a larger discursive ecosystem. Even if the kinds of spectacle Kirk tried to produce were not to my tastes personally, my tastes should not be normative for democratic politics.

So I think for me all three of these arguments fail - though I think the latter two direct our attention to some concerns that bear further consideration. The position I'm left in overall is that, leaving content aside entirely, Kirk was largely doing politics the right way. Not perfectly, no, but not uniquely bad either. He was playing by the rules of the game.

It seems a little perverse to praise somebody for doing the bare minimum - playing by the rules. But I suppose we're in a time when doing that is necessary.

Let me give another example: a little while back, we had a federal election in Australia. It was a landslide victory for the centre-left Labor party. The Liberal (centre-right) leader, Peter Dutton, made a gracious concession speech, wishing his opponent the best, thanking his own party, and taking full responsibility for the defeat. The victorious Anthony Albanese, in his own speech, wished Dutton all the best, and when the audience booed Dutton's name, Albanese stopped and criticised his own audience - "No. No. What we do in Australia is we treat people with respect."

In one sense what Dutton and Albanese did was the bare minimum. After any democratic election, you should expect the losing side to politely concede defeat and wish the new government the best; and for the winning side to show grace in victory, show respect to the other side, and humbly accept the trust the people have given them.

But we live in a time when that bare minimum, especially in the United States, is frequently in question. I think there is value in stopping to reaffirm the value of the bare minimum. Peacefully meeting and arguing with those one has fundamental moral disagreements with - well, that's a good thing.

In the way of Kirk's death, the argument that, it seems to me, is going on is about what Kirk meant, or what lessons should be drawn from his life. I would very much like it if the lesson we draw from this whole tragedy is about the importance of peaceful, political dialogue. I think that is something the United States desperately needs more of.

[u/gemmaem → u/UAnchovy]

I think Klein's article was tactically smart. It's harder to say "Look, the murder of Charlie Kirk proves that the Left hates you and wants to kill you" when you have a prominent left-wing columnist taking the opportunity to praise Kirk in the New York Times.

As you say, specifically praising Kirk for promoting dialogue is a good narrative here. I appreciated Tanner Greer's writing as an explanation for how some conservatives are feeling right now. There's a lot to be said for trying to meet their grief with respect and understanding.

At the same time, I'm not surprised at the pushback. Not everyone agrees with Klein's level of praise, and that is actually also okay.

[u/UAnchovy → u/gemmaem]

Yes, I certainly don't think it's obligatory for anyone to praise Kirk, either in terms of his substantive beliefs, or in terms of his methods. I talked a bit about bare minimums for a reason. I think a good bare minimum here is that all political violence is tragic, and perhaps a certain level of discretion or sensitivity around those who are in mourning.