Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated last week at Utah Valley University.
Was Kirk a good role model for America’s political discourse? Will he be remembered as a champion of civil debate, or a divisive pundit? Newsweek contributors Paul du Quenoy and Nina Turner debate:
Paul du Quenoy:
Charlie Kirk was the ideal role model for American political discourse. Throughout his unfortunately short life, Charlie committed himself unreservedly to reasoned debate, rational discourse, and the polite exchange of opinion. He often encountered rudeness, hostility, and threats for his candor—and ultimately paid the highest price for his values—but he never descended to anger, lost his temper, or compromised his values. He embodied the best traditions of the republic and should be extolled for generations to come. His sad death should serve as a sterling example for us all. His gentle manner and welcoming smile will long remain a blessed image for all those who love liberty.
Nina Turner:
While Charlie Kirk’s demeanor was mostly “civil,” the very premise of his format was not one of debate. His tour was named “Prove Me Wrong,” which frames his opinions as correct by default—not one that begins on equal ground with an interlocutor. He used the format of his events to spread his views online. I believe he did have principles, and those principles were harmful. He expressed support for public executions, argued that children who were raped should be forced to give birth, and said the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake.” This is his legacy.
du Quenoy:
Any participant in any debate naturally frames his or her opinions as “correct.” Simply having views that others may disagree with—or that some may even find “harmful”—discredits neither the process nor the man. Not everyone shared Charlie Kirk’s opinions, but he never required them to as a condition for discussion, which was never censored, uneven, or unwelcome. To the illiberal forces arrayed against free expression, that was the biggest threat he posed.
Turner:
Charlie Kirk was not a “participant” in his debates; he was the person putting on the events with the framework of his opinions being correct. His was a content operation, not an opinions-based operation. He also didn’t stop with these events—he used his growing power to influence government. He didn’t deserve to be gunned down, but doesn’t mean his views were conducive to a fair and just society.
du Quenoy:
Call it what you like, but Charlie Kirk advanced the cause of reasoned discussion and actively invited others to share their views in a spirit of courtesy, respect, and positive mutual exchange. Again, one could disagree with his views but both the process of events and his tone captured the spirit of the Founding Fathers. For this he is and will long continue to be honored.
Turner:
I fight to see an America as good as its promise. The reality is, if the Founding Fathers were reading our exchange today, they’d wonder how a Black woman was allowed not only to have this platform, but to learn how to read and write in the first place. Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to be killed in cold blood. Neither did Democratic Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman just months ago. This violence wasn’t a matter of Left versus Right; it was American-on-American violence. Until we acknowledge that, we will get nowhere.
du Quenoy:
The nation has to an overwhelming extent rejected political violence. With over 32,000 requests to create new Turning Point chapters around the country, much of the nation has already decided that Charlie Kirk’s civility, rationality, and commitment to reason are their values—and American values.
Turner:
America should reject political violence, but that doesn’t mean our system will. The shooter wrote on his bullets, our politicians sign missiles. Charlie Kirk should not have been killed, but that doesn’t mean that what he stood for was moral.
du Quenoy:
The spirit of Charlie Kirk will long inspire generations of Americans who truly believe in reasoned debate, logical argument, and free speech for all of our compatriots. Charlie’s views were strong and not everyone agreed with him, but he was consistently receptive to honest and polite exchanges. His values—American values—are the best hope for our republic and should emulated by all. The tyranny of any minority cannot and must not be allowed to stifle discussion and rule over our land.
Turner:
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be murdered and Americans do not deserve to have political leaders use horrific moments to stoke the flames of hate for their own political benefit. The American people are losing. This was American-on-American violence enabled by American culture and American laws. We spend too much time arguing over which “side” is to blame, instead of asking ourselves what it is we need to heal. It’s easier to point fingers than to find solutions. This reality, if left unchecked, is another level of tragedy.
Paul du Quenoy is President of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute.
Nina Turner is a former Ohio state senator, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School, and the founder of We Are Somebody.
The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.
Read the full article here
