Restraint in the Face of Tragedy: The Charlie Kirk Assassination and the Hypothetical Double Standard, By Chris Knight (Florida)

In a nation perpetually on edge, the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 13, 2025, stands as a stark test of political temperament. Kirk, the fiery founder of Turning Point USA and a lightning rod for conservative activism, was gunned down in cold blood during what should have been a routine campus dialogue with students. The shooter, whose motives remain under investigation but appear ideologically driven, ended the life of a figure revered by millions on the Right as a defender of free speech, traditional values, and youth empowerment. Yet, in the immediate aftermath, there have been no widespread riots, no looting sprees, no cities set ablaze by "far-Right" extremists. This restraint, as noted by commentators like John Leake, offers a glimmer of hope amid America's deepening divides, but it also invites uncomfortable questions about consistency in our political culture, and the violence of the Left.

Leake, a self-described admirer of the Founding Fathers, captures the essence of this moment in his reflective piece: "Reflexively — without even thinking about it — I have replied that I don't anticipate any organized violence, never mind rioting, burning, and looting of the BLM/Antifa variety." He's right. Conservative leaders, from Kirk's Turning Point colleagues to broader GOP figures, have condemned the killing unequivocally while calling for calm, legal justice, and unity against violence. Social media from Right-leaning accounts buzzes with grief, demands for accountability, and critiques of campus radicalism, but there's no mobilisation for street chaos. Protests, if they occur, are likely to be peaceful vigils or rallies emphasising Kirk's legacy of intellectual combat over physical confrontation. This isn't spin; it's observable. In an era where algorithms amplify outrage, the absence of escalated fury from the Right speaks volumes about a movement that, for all its rhetoric, has largely channelled energy into elections, policy fights, and cultural pushback, rather than destruction.

Contrast this with the historical precedent set by the Left in response to perceived injustices. The death of George Floyd in May 2020, ruled a homicide by asphyxiation, but often framed in activist narratives as emblematic of systemic racism, ignited months of unrest. BLM and Antifa-led protests morphed into riots in over 140 cities, resulting in billions in damages, hundreds of injuries to police, and at least 25 deaths. Businesses were looted, police stations torched, and federal buildings besieged, all under the banner of demanding reform. Even if one accepts the most charitable view, that Floyd's death was exacerbated by restraint during a fentanyl overdose, as some medical experts have argued, the scale of the reaction was seismic. Media coverage, while critical of excesses, often contextualised the violence as a righteous uprising against oppression, with figures like then-candidate Joe Biden decrying "systemic racism" without fully condemning the chaos.

Now, for a hypothetical, imagine the mirror image: What if a Left-wing icon — a progressive firebrand symbolising the Left's bold vision for social justice — was assassinated by a self-avowed crazed MAGA supporter? The hypothetical shooter, perhaps a QAnon adherent or disgruntled Trump loyalist, claims the act as retaliation for "socialist overreach." Of course, this is evil, totally unjustified, but run with it for the sake of argument. The response wouldn't be restraint; it would be pandemonium. Based on patterns from past events, we could expect:

Immediate Mass Mobilisation: BLM chapters, Antifa networks, and progressive activists would flood streets nationwide. Protests in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., would swell into occupations of public spaces, echoing the 2020 summer, but amplified by social media's real-time outrage machine.

Media Amplification: Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times would frame the killing as the inevitable fruit of "MAGA extremism" and Trump's lingering influence, drawing parallels to January 6 or historical assassinations like those of MLK or RFK. Pundits would warn of a "fascist undercurrent" in America, with calls for gun control, deplatforming conservative voices, and federal investigations into Right-wing groups. Sympathetic coverage of any ensuing violence might invoke "understandable anger" amid "institutional failures."

Escalating Violence: Looting could target symbols of capitalism or perceived conservative strongholds, like corporate HQs or police precincts. Arson, clashes with law enforcement, and even attacks on federal property wouldn't be outliers; they'd be normalised in the narrative of resistance. Political leaders like Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders might issue measured condemnations of violence while stressing the "root causes" of Right-wing radicalisation, potentially delaying full-throated calls for peace.

Long-Term Fallout: The economy would suffer from disrupted commerce, with insurance claims skyrocketing as in 2020. Politically, it could galvanise the Left's base, boosting voter turnout in midterms while painting the Right as inherently violent. Demands for "truth and reconciliation" commissions or expanded surveillance on conservatives would proliferate, further eroding trust.

This isn't mere speculation; it's extrapolated from real precedents. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump in July 2024 elicited cheers from some Left-leaning corners online, but no riots ensued from the Right, mirroring today's Kirk scenario. Yet, the killing of Breonna Taylor in 2020 spurred similar unrest to Floyd's case. The pattern suggests a cultural asymmetry: The Left's responses to icons' harms often prioritise collective catharsis through disruption, viewing it as moral imperative, while the Right's ethos, rooted in law-and-order traditions and individual accountability, favours institutional channels.

Why the difference? Ideological wiring plays a role. Progressivism often frames systemic inequities as justifying disruptive action, drawing from civil rights legacies where nonviolence gave way to militancy (e.g., the Black Panthers). Conservatism, conversely, emphasises personal responsibility and constitutional order, seeing riots as counterproductive to their goals of stability and limited government. Data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) shows that post-2020 unrest was overwhelmingly Left-leaning, with Right-wing demonstrations rarely escalating beyond permitted rallies.

Leake's optimism, that this incident exposes the Left's "vile true colours" without provoking reciprocal savagery, holds water. Kirk's murder has already sparked campus debates on free speech and ideological tolerance, potentially awakening moderates to the stakes. In George Washington's words, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government." Violence undermines that; reason upholds it.

https://www.thefp.com/p/students-celebrating-murder-charlie-kirk

"I would have killed him myself." That's what one person said at Charlie Kirk's vigil in Seattle, Washington, on Wednesday night. The assassin, he said, "did us a favor."

At a vigil in Idaho, you would have seen a man on a scooter drive through the crowd screaming, "F**k Charlie Kirk!"

If you were at The University of Texas at Austin, you would have heard a student say, "Someone had to do it." Another student said: "He was a disgusting person with disgusting beliefs. . . . I think things happen for a purpose. And if that's how his life was ended, then that's how it was ended."

At Oxford University, George Abaraonye, the incoming president of the Oxford Union—one of the most prestigious debate societies in the world that has hosted leaders like Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan—wrote to his friends that "Charlie Kirk got shot, let's f**king go." In May, Abaraonye himself debated Kirk at Oxford, standing five feet away while discussing politics.

After Abaraonye's comment became public, he said that he had "reacted impulsively" and that "nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence."

In the hours after Kirk's assassination, young people flooded the internet with hateful rhetoric justifying an innocent man's death. "Lol" and the fire emoji trended on Bluesky. A TikTok user posted a video of himself dancing in the streets with a megaphone and singing, "We got Charlie in the neck."

Another smiled earnestly into the camera and said that "the best part" is that Kirk is not "martyr material." "His death will mean nothing. It will activate no one, it will impact few. It's just great."

One Bluesky user posted a long list of conservative commentators and activists, with Kirk's name crossed out. The message was clear: If you hold the views that Kirk did, you're now fair game."