In the wake of Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, a familiar cry has echoed from the Left: "McCarthyism is back!" The article "Political witch hunts and blacklists: Donald Trump and the new era of McCarthyism," by Brincat, Mols, and Crimmins (see link below), paints a chilling picture of a modern-day political inquisition driven by the Trump administration and far-Right forces. They claim a "coordinated campaign of silencing critics" through doxxing, firings, and threats, echoing the 1950s Red Scare, has targeted teachers, professors, journalists, and even Jimmy Kimmel for "insensitive" comments about Kirk's death. Vice President JD Vance is cast as the new Roy Cohn, urging supporters to "call them out... hell, call their employer."
This narrative, while emotionally resonant in our polarised times, crumbles under scrutiny. The measures following Kirk's killing aren't a top-down authoritarian purge like McCarthy's Senate hearings or loyalty oaths. They're decentralised, citizen-led reactions to what many perceive as gleeful celebration of a political murder. Equating the two isn't just ahistorical, it's a dangerous deflection from the real issue: unchecked Left-wing rhetoric that dehumanises conservatives, potentially inciting violence like the one that claimed Kirk's life at just age 31.
Let's recall the actual McCarthy era. Senator Joseph McCarthy wielded government authority, subpoena power, congressional investigations, and federal loyalty programs, to ruin lives. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) grilled witnesses under oath, blacklisting Hollywood stars and firing federal employees based on unsubstantiated accusations of communism. The Lavender Scare targeted LGBTQ+ civil servants with state-sanctioned purges. This was institutional terror, chilling speech through fear of the state.
Contrast that with the Kirk response. No congressional committees are hauling critics before microphones. No executive orders demand loyalty pledges. The "Expose Charlie's Murderers" website? It was a short-lived, user-generated effort, reportedly taken down within days by its own creators or platform moderators, not federal fiat. Vance's podcast remarks? Inflammatory, yes, but a vice president's off-the-cuff call to "call their employer" isn't a directive from the Justice Department. It's speech, protected under the First Amendment, amplified in the "digital town squares" the authors decry. Employers like The Washington Post (firing columnist Karen Attiah for posts quoting Kirk's past remarks on Black women) or MSNBC (parting with analyst Matthew Dowd over gun violence commentary) acted on private HR decisions, often in response to viral public backlash.
This isn't "far-Right cancel culture" orchestrated by Trump; it's the free market of ideas at work, where odious speech meets social and economic consequences. The Left mastered this playbook during the Trump years, remember the Covington Catholic kids doxxed over a 2019 viral clip, or J.K. Rowling hounded for gender views? If that's not "McCarthyism," why is it suddenly so when the targets shift?
The authors highlight a "gross double standard," noting the Right's muted response to Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman's June 14, 2025, assassination alongside her husband Mark. It's true, Trump's national address post-Kirk omitted Hortman, focusing blame on "the radical Left." But this cuts both ways. Where was the Left's unified mourning for Kirk? Instead, X lit up with posts like "good riddance to the hate-spreader" or memes joking about his "neo-Nazi' views, precisely the "insensitive comments" now decried. A PBS report tallied numerous firings for such posts, but also noted calls for "greater civility" from both sides.
Hortman's killer, Vance Boelter, was indicted for "politically motivated" murders targeting Democrats. Yet the Left didn't launch doxxing campaigns against his enablers or flood X with employer tips. Why? Because Hortman's death fit a narrative of Right-wing extremism, while Kirk's (by a lone gunman, Tyler Robinson, motivated by "hate-spreading" claims) threatens it. This isn't hypocrisy on the Right; it's the Left's own selective empathy, as the authors admit Kirk once dismissed as a "made-up, new age term."
There are warnings from the Left, of "fascism" and "civil war" from this "new McCarthyism." But who's stoking the fire? Kirk's assassin cited his "hate" as motive, echoing years of Left-wing media portraying him as a "racist, misogynistic neo-Nazi." Pre-death, Turning Point USA events faced Antifa disruptions; post-death, vigils at HBCUs went into lockdown over threats. If dialogue is democracy's "lifeblood," as they say, then celebrating a killing isn't dissent, it's incitement.
Trump's pre-Kirk moves against DEI? That's policy debate, not purges; universities like Berkeley complied voluntarily amid funding pressures, not subpoenas. The Canary Mission's pro-Palestinian lists? A non-profit's activism, akin to left-wing BDS campaigns, not state deportation squads.
The McCarthy era ended not just from public revulsion (that famous "Have you no sense of decency?" line), but because it overreached into absurdity, like Army-McCarthy hearings exposing the cruelty. Today's backlash could wane similarly if it stays grassroots. But labelling it "authoritarianism" excuses the Left from self-reflection: How many Kirk-like figures must die before we stop the demonisation?
Democracy thrives on robust debate, not selective outrage. If the authors truly fear authoritarianism, let's start by condemning all political violence, Hortman, Kirk, the 520+ terror plots this year alone. Otherwise, we're all just replaying the tragedies.