Charlie Kirk's murder could become another Fort Sumter

This column raises and answers three questions crucial to America’s political future.  

First, what are the consequences, intended and otherwise, of the blatant murder of Charlie Kirk? Second, is the far right or far left more responsible for political violence and murder in the U.S.? Third, suppose Kirk were a Democrat with similar influence as he had with the GOP? How might Republicans have reacted to his murder?

The repercussions of the slaying of Turning Point CEO and rising MAGA star Charlie Kirk will fester for a while. On the one hand, over time they could dissipate. On the other, this could be a 21st century equivalent of the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861 that started the Civil War.  

In that case, if it occurs, it will not be two armies marching to battle. It will be far more complicated politically, socially  and culturally.

Already, President Trump is using Kirk’s killing a bludgeon with which to strike at the left and Democrats holding both responsible for the death. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has gone so far as to call the Democratic party “extremist,” implying it was a terrorist organization.  

Trump has also declared Antifa a domestic terrorist organization, something the law does not allow him to do and that he has no standing to do. For example, Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds in the Oklahoma City 1995 bombing was convicted of murder, not domestic terrorism, which is not an actual basis for a criminal charge.

How this plays out remains to be seen. My bet, however, is that this will be the fuse that ignites a major political, social and cultural war. The result will be even more bitter and partisan politics and a government incapable of governing in a common-sense and effective way.

Regarding right- and left-wing extremists using political violence over the past 50 years and excluding Sept. 11, 2001, a Cato Institute study shows that the right wing was responsible for 391 inspired murders; the left wing 65. Despite the statistics, Trump continues to assert that left-wing extremism is responsible not only for Kirk’s murder but also for most of the politically inspired violence in America. I haven’t seen anyone factually challenge the president on this. Why?

The White House has declared open season on critics beyond the left, in which free speech is now under attack. Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from late night television by ABC is the latest example.

Denying that right-wing extremism is more dangerous than left wing extremism — as this in essence is a critique of the MAGA base — is to dismiss the truth to attack the so-called enemy. When truth becomes the enemy, along with free speech, this is a society in peril.

Finally, suppose Kirk were a Democrat with equal influence on his party as he had on Republicans and MAGA. How might Trump, Republicans and MAGA have responded to his death?

Of course this is conjecture. But it is more likely than not that Kirk’s virtues Republicans held so dear would have received a similar appreciation.

And what about Kirk’s alleged murderer, Tyler Robinson? Republicans already point to his reported relationship with his roommate, a person transitioning gender, as part of the reasons explaining his mindset. The Trump team claims that being transgender represents a disorder that can lead to violence. This is another distortion lacking scientific evidence.

As other commentators have observed, Republicans were once against cancel culture. They now seem to embrace it.

Beyond the tragedy and the heinous act of murder that cannot be expressed in sufficiently descriptive terms, given the polarized nature of American society, this will amplify the gaps and divisions. While all sides mouth platitudes and bromides about “lowering the temperature,” that will not happen.

The real question is whether Kirk’s death will have lasting impact, like the murder of George Floyd led to violent incidents that occurred over the ensuing weeks. My fear is that Kirk’s killing could lead to the kind of violence that took place during the Black Lives Matter protests, but on steroids.

I only hope I am wrong.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and former United Kingdom Defense Chief David Richards are the authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.