Washington Wednesday: Assassination and aftermath

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: It’s Wednesday the 17th of September.

This is WORLD Radio and we’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning, I’m Lindsay Mast.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

First up on The World and Everything in It: Washington Wednesday.

It’s difficult to believe it’s been only a week since the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a national figure cut down in broad daylight. And now he joins one of the shortest lists in American history—political leaders struck down by political violence:

Abraham Lincoln. James Garfield. William McKinley. John F. Kennedy: presidents. Robert F. Kennedy, presidential candidate. Leaders of national movements, Malcolm X. Martin Luther King Junior. And now, Charlie Kirk. By that measure, just eight. It has been more than half a century since America last endured the assassination of a national figure. Until a week ago.

MAST: In an unprecedented gesture, the body of Charlie Kirk was flown home aboard Air Force Two, with Vice President J.D. Vance escorting his family. Never before has the U.S. government used a vice-presidential aircraft in such a manner. And on Monday, the vice president sat in as a guest host of The Charlie Kirk Show a highly popular podcast. He called for Americans to unite against political violence—though, as he put it, true unity must begin with truth:

VANCE: I really do believe that we can come together in this country. I believe we must. But unity, real unity, can be found only after climbing the mountain of truth. And there are difficult truths we must confront in our country.

One of the difficult truths now is the reality of violent rhetoric and its consequences. Almost immediately after Kirk’s death some posted celebrations online, others, somewhat less distastefully, mocked or criticized him. Some of those voices, whether in media, business, or education have since found themselves out of work.

EICHER: Some say that response is something Charlie Kirk would not have approved of.

Adam Goldstein at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said that in a free society we can’t be afraid to express our views despite opposition, and he cautioned against canceling those who offend us.

Vice President Vance, though, had this response to an article in the magazine The Nation:

VANCE: There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination, and there is no unity with the people who fund these articles, who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers who argue that Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagree.

MAST: So is this just another side of the cancel-culture coin?

Political scientist and WORLD Opinions contributor Hunter Baker joins us now to talk it. Hunter, good morning.

HUNTER BAKER: Good morning.

MAST: Hunter, is that what this is?

BAKER: Yeah, I am one of these people who was very distressed to see the growth of cancel culture, and I thought it was a dangerous thing, and I hated the way that we would just throw people away for making the wrong comment. But I've thought really hard about this, and I think that this is a different kind of a thing that we're talking about. When we talk about free speech in the United States, we're talking about a freedom of exchange of political ideas, or about the nature of truth, or sort of philosophic thoughts. We're protecting the ability to criticize the government, to try to shape public policy those sorts of things. When we look at the kinds of things that people were saying about Charlie Kirk, I would argue that they are a celebration of and an incitement to murder. Encouraging people to commit murder is not, in my opinion, a valid form of free speech or political speech. You know, we are. We're asking people essentially, to exit the realm of politics and to enter into the realm of war. I think that Charlie Kirk was treated as though he was an enemy combatant in a war, rather than one of our fellow citizens. So from my perspective, when people celebrate his death and seem to egg on others to do more of the same. First of all, I legitimately consider it a possibility that there's a sort of demonic possession of people going on with this. x, it's utterly disastrous where people are supposed to debate and talk and sort of try to arrive at the truth together

MAST: I have a follow-up, Hunter, and it connects to what Vance was saying about condemning political violence. He’s not alone in that, but one area I’ve noticed that’s been strikingly silent is higher education.

This assassination happened on a college campus. Parents are asking—can their kids gather safely? Can they engage in debate? Can they even talk openly?

And yet, I simply haven’t seen many colleges issue a clear statement condemning Kirk’s murder.

What should we make of that?

BAKER: Well, I think that during the covid era and sort of the George Floyd controversy, colleges felt that they were being constantly asked to take a public position, you know, on every issue that arose, take a public position and and that can be quite challenging, right? You know, to try to formulate a proper sort of a position for every one of these things that comes up. And the more you do it, the more people will ask you, why aren't you doing it? And so I think that most colleges during that period kind of settled upon this idea that we are not going to issue statements with regard to issues that don't directly involve the college. Now, what I will say, though, is, I think that Ari Fleischer, former Bush communications expert, he said something great, which is the he thought that the the Ivy League colleges, and I don't know why this wouldn't go for other colleges as well. Should set up annual Charlie Kirk lectures, which are aimed at encouraging the value of free speech. I think colleges need to double down on that. It's something that has that has gotten worse. When I was in college in the late 80s, we all we strongly believed in free speech, right and left, and what happened over time is that you would see conservative speakers going to colleges and being hit in the face with a pie or have mayonnaise thrown at their head or something like that. I can remember one AEI scholar and his faculty sponsor being literally assaulted and injured.

EICHER: Charles Murray.

BAKER: It was Charles Murray. That's right, instead of being allowed to speak and countless others being shouted down, now that we've seen somebody actually killed, this is a moment where it's time to reverse course hard and to really impress people with the value of free speech.

EICHER: With respect, Ari’s idea sounds like a good one, but I’ve got a proposed policy statement I think any educator, college, institutional head can sign onto. I mean, this was a political assassination, one of eight in the history of the country. And the first, I think, ever to take place on a college campus. So an institution can easily restrict it to that, go ahead and condemn that.

BAKER: That's a reasonable distinction. Yeah,
That's true. And you noticed that I, as an educator, I had a lot to say about it in print and on my social media. So I've tried to do my part.

MAST: Absolutely.

Something else notable in Vance’s podcast hosting … he spoke of the need for unity against political violence. I’d like to play this and get your response:

VANCE: This violence, it doesn’t come from nowhere. Now, any political movement, violent or not violent, is a collection of forces. It’s like a pyramid that stacks on top one support on top of the other. That pyramid has got a foundation of donors, of activists, of journalists, now of social media influencers, and of course of politicians. Not every member of that pyramid would commit a murder. In fact, over 99%, I’m sure, would not. But by celebrating that murder, apologizing for it, and emphasizing not Charlie’s innocence but the fact that he said things some didn’t like—even to the point of lying about what he actually said—many of these people are creating an environment where things like this are inevitably going to happen.

What do you think?

BAKER: Well, there's definitely something going on, I mean, and I've noticed that there's sort of a race to establish an empirical case, right? Who is more likely to do this? The Vice President sort of made a case that, objectively, the left is cultivating this sort of of a reaction and egging it on. And I saw a piece in The New York Times earlier today arguing exactly the opposite. So we're gonna, we're gonna, kind of have this debate over who is really doing this. But I think that when you look at this language of fascism being thrown around, the idea that Donald Trump is a fascist, the idea that people who are allied with him are fascists, and therefore similar to Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini, then it's obvious that you are encouraging people to see them as enemies who must be destroyed and not people who even deserve to be engaged in terms of a debate. I mean, one of the things that I think that is so tragic about all this is that Charlie Kirk so closely embodied the ideal of debate. I think, as Ezra Klein said, and I really appreciate him saying this, Charlie Kirk was doing exactly what an American is supposed to do. He was encouraging people to engage in open debate. And in fact, you know, if you watch the clips of him at these rallies, he says, If you disagree with me, come to the front of the line, and instead, what he got was a bullet. Instead, what he got was killed. To me, it's just one of the greatest political failures I can imagine.

EICHER: Yes, and this week the White House started signaling it intends to act. Senior officials say they are looking to classify some left-wing activity as domestic terrorism. They’re exploring racketeering charges under RICO statutes. They’re also examining whether certain nonprofits should lose their tax-exempt status if they’re proved to have supported or encouraged violence.

It’s much the same toolset past administrations have been accused of misusing—think of the IRS targeting conservative groups under Obama, or aggressive enforcement under Biden, to say the least. We heard a lot about lawfare then. But now it’s the right in power, and the target is the left.

So Hunter, is this a legitimate crackdown, or is it lawfare we’ve criticized before?

BAKER: Well, on the one hand, I like the idea of giving the left pause about some of these things. I like the idea of letting them think, you know, look this, we're taking this very seriously. Don't be cavalier about it. On the other hand, anything that you do, you have to be worried about how the other side will use it when they're in power and and I think about the RICO statutes were often used against pro lifers. In fact, Randy Alcorn, the pro lifer to this day, he basically cannot earn any income because he doesn't want it to be garnished and paid to organizations that are pro choice. And that's the RICO statutes were actually used in that way, were struck down by the Supreme Court, but he informed me that Oregon had a state version that still was affecting him, and so we don't want to see people sort of dogged and pursued in this fashion by the government, but sending a message of seriousness that we need To be responsible about this stuff. That's exactly right.

MAST: Hunter, I know you remember three weeks ago when I asked you this question:

MAST: I’m curious, Hunter. Can you point to anyone of similar stature today? Is there anyone having an Esther moment where they were called to a time such as this? Someone who’s capable of carrying on that legacy?

BAKER: It’s really a tough question. You know, I have watched significant leader after significant leader leave the scene. I think about people, not only evangelicals, but people such as Richard John Neuhaus and William F. Buckley, Charles Colson, James Dobson. And I’m not sure if I see who is really going to replace them, but I can tell you somebody who I think is trying, and that’s Charlie Kirk. I increasingly hear people impressed with Charlie Kirk and think that maybe he's really building something. So we’ll see.

EICHER: That surprised me then, but now that I look more deeply into Kirk, I'm less surprised. He was way more substantial than I ever thought, and that’s an indictment on me as a journalist. I need to own that. But what prompted the mention then, and I think that’s proved completely correct, judging from the outpouring we’ve seen.

BAKER: I don't really know what made me mention Charlie Kirk in that moment. Certainly. As soon as he was killed, that came right back to me, that we had had that interview, and that I had mentioned him as one of the potential heirs to James Dobson. And I think that what I would say is my wife has really been She's a doctor. She's not been very interested in politics for most of her life, and the last year, she started to pay attention, and I noticed that she was talking about Charlie Kirk, and I thought about him as somebody who's just kind of a hard edged political figure, but she seemed to think of him more as a Christian and as somebody with more depth and substance. So I started to look at it, and I think that that's what brought him to mind in that moment. And of course, I think that we have realized, looking back at some of the things that he's been saying, that he was much more ardent about witnessing to his faith and encouraging people to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. And so I think that I just had a growing awareness of his increased spiritual maturity, and it brought him to mind.

MAST: Hunter Baker is a political scientist and provost at North Greenville University. Hunter, thank you.

BAKER: Thank you.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.