By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
The recent murder of American conservative activist and thought leader Charlie Kirk is yet another example of how a toxic social climate, where people of differing political orientations and worldviews see one another as enemies, can easily give rise to acts of violence, including those with the gravest consequences.
This was not the first attack on a political figure, nor the first to end in death. People from both political camps have been targeted. Earlier this year, Democratic state congresswoman from Minnesota Melissa Hortman was murdered along with her husband. A fire was set at the residence of Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor Josh Shapiro. And current President Donald Trump was twice the target of assassination attempts during last year’s presidential campaign.
The man suspected of killing Charlie Kirk comes from a conservative family but was likely exposed to leftist indoctrination. It appears something similar happened to him as to many Islamist terrorists, individuals who were long apolitical but, through a series of circumstances, fell into environments that led to their radicalisation. This reflects the deep polarisation that has gripped American and other Western societies.
The most immediate and widely circulated explanation for such acts is the easy availability of firearms and the resulting over-arming of Americans. It sounds plausible, but it is misguided. Weapons do not kill on their own; they are wielded by people. The real issue lies in radical ideologies and their aggressive nature, where in the name of supposed social justice, anything goes, any means is justified to silence perceived enemies.
After news of Kirk’s murder broke, many on the political left openly celebrated. They labelled him a far-right extremist, a racist, and of course – a fascist. This is nothing less than an attempt to legitimise the crime – or at least to minimise its gravity. Kirk advocated positions one could agree or disagree with. But he was not an extremist. Crucially, he championed dialogue with those who thought differently, because only such dialogue has meaning. That is something many of his opponents on the left cannot claim.
It is worth highlighting that the American political establishment showed rare unity in response to Kirk’s murder. Not only Republicans, to whom he was ideologically close, but also Democrats condemned the act firmly and without reservation. All living former presidents joined in the condemnation. Even prominent left-wing Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders and New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani added their voices.
In Europe, the situation regarding political violence seems more problematic. While American politics attempts to contain it, parts of the political class east of the Atlantic – sometimes even those in power – appear to encourage it. This is especially evident in the rise of pro-Palestinian protests, which often escalate into open violence. Two socialist governments stand out in this regard – Spain and Slovenia – both of which include far-left factions. In Spain, ministers led by the prime minister incited protests during this year’s Vuelta a España due to the participation of an Israeli team. Violent demonstrators disrupted several stages and injured one cyclist. In Slovenia, pro-Palestinian agitators are effectively informal partners of the ruling coalition. And many of those who frequently “weep” over Palestinian suffering did not hide their satisfaction at Charlie Kirk’s death. This reveals their false humanitarianism. They do not care about Palestinians, they simply use them as an excuse to unleash their own aggression.