|
Charlie Kirk’s assassination was, to many on the political right, the fault of “radical left political violence” and demonizing rhetoric from the Democratic Party. Others had dramatically different interpretations, pointing instead to Kirk's own inflammatory language and what they saw as his bigotry towards minority groups
In The Conversation’s coverage of this latest episode of American political violence, we focus far less on who is to blame and more on what it means – and what happens next.
“Wherever you stand on his political views, Charlie Kirk’s murder is a tragedy on a personal level,” writes Gordon Lynch, adding: “But as a public figure his death represents a dangerous moment, as it threatens to deepen divides between conservatives and liberals in America and beyond.”
Lynch, a professor of religion, focuses on Kirk’s position among America’s religious right, whom to many the conservative activist was a hero. Analyzing the response of Kirk's supporters to the murder, Lynch notes: “There were those who wanted to see this as a turning point in the battle against the side of evil, the people who opposed his Christian mission. But others saw in his legacy a commitment to engagement and debate with those whom he disagreed with. It remains to be seen which side of this legacy wins out.”
Arie Perliger, an expert on political violence, isn’t hopeful.
“As part of my work, I track the most extremist online social media accounts,” he writes, continuing: “And what we see right now is a strong sense that this assassination is being celebrated by parts of the left. And that has created an escalation of language from those in the extreme right social media ecosystem. There is much more willingness to discuss issues of retaliation, an actual civil war.”
Elsewhere this week, we have been keeping an eye on the turmoil in Nepal and pondering Xi Jinping's legacy.
|
