Grappling with Charlie Kirk’s Death and the Divisions He Leaves Behind

His murder forces America to confront both political violence and the legacy of hateful rhetoric

I was sitting at R House, one of my favorite food stalls in Baltimore, when a potential client across the table interrupted our conversation with the words: “Charlie Kirk has been shot.” At first, I shrugged it off. I didn’t even immediately connect the name. But later, as I scrolled through Facebook — yes, Facebook — the weight of the moment became clearer. My evangelical friends from Texas, my Republican family back home, and my college classmates who lean Democratic were all posting, grieving, and arguing. The deep political divides of our country were suddenly on full display in my feed.

On September 10, Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking at Utah Valley University. He leaves behind a wife and two young children. That fact alone is tragic. And yet, his life forces us to grapple with something thornier than mourning a loved public servant or cultural icon. Kirk was not just a conservative commentator; he was a political provocateur, someone who made his name by trolling, dividing, and deploying rhetoric that marginalized whole groups of Americans.

Charlie Kirk often rejected empathy, once saying, “I can’t stand the word empathy. I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage.” His public statements left scars. He derided Martin Luther King Jr. as “awful” and dismissed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as “a huge mistake.” He claimed the “Great Replacement” was not a theory but reality, promoting a white nationalist conspiracy. He called transgender identity a “mental disease” and demanded a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care. He mocked pronoun use, quoted scripture to condemn homosexuality, and reduced civil rights advances to “myths.” Most ironically, Kirk once said gun violence was “worth it” as a cost of protecting the Second Amendment. It is by a gun that his own life was taken.

This moment requires nuance. Two things can be true at once. Political killings are wrong. Violence in our democracy is a toxin that corrodes civic life, and leaders from President Obama to Governor Wes Moore have rightly denounced this act. If we normalize assassination as a political tool, we endanger every future leader, and fewer of our brightest citizens will step forward to serve. It is also okay if you cannot muster sympathy for a man who spent his life demonizing others. Promoting racism is not “just another political viewpoint.” It is an assault on the dignity of fellow Americans.

So how do we as a nation process this? When President Trump ordered flags lowered to half-mast, the gesture stirred debate. Should we mourn as Scripture says, “mourn with those who mourn”? Should we fight fire with fire and denounce even in death? Or should we simply remain silent? There is no single answer. What is clear is that Kirk’s death has left us to confront once again the contradictions of American democracy: the commitment to free speech, even when hateful, and the commitment to nonviolence, even when those targeted may not have received the same compassion.

I denounce the killing of Charlie Kirk. But I also acknowledge the pain he inflicted in life. The challenge now is not only to prevent political violence but also to ensure our public square is not dominated by voices that thrive on hate.

About the Author
Harold Booker Jr. is the founder and principal of DrewJenk Consulting, a Baltimore-based firm specializing in project management, economic development, and AI-driven consulting. He is a frequent contributor to The Baltimore Times, where he writes commentary on social issues, arts and culture, and community events.