One afternoon of sun, that of September 10, at Utah Valley University, he tinted with red blood. Charlie Kirk, founder of Usa Turning Pointhe was speaking in front of hundreds of students, intervening on divisive themes: freedom of speech, “Woke” culture, progressive policies. It was the opening of his “American Comeback Tour,” a tour of university campus that should have reaffirmed his ideas in front of a young audience. Then, suddenly, everything changed.
A bullet shot from afar-probably from a nearby building, at a estimated distance around 180-200 meters-hit Kirk around the neck. He fell, those present went to run, the panic took over. He was urgently brought to the hospital, but shortly after he learned that the wounds were fatal. Charlie Kirk is dead.
The authorities define the event as a political assassination. There is still no identified culprit. A person initially detained did not correspond to the Entikit; The investigation continues.
Who was Charlie Kirk
To understand the impact of his death, we must understand who he was: not only the man who spoke on campus, but the symbol of a large political current. Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist who entered the sorceress movement at a young age. At 18 he had co -founded Usa Turning Pointwith the idea of mobilizing conservative students at universities – Criticizing progressive culture, opposing what he called “Woke,” support individual freedom, the right to possess weapons (second amendment)extreme positions to the right on social issues.
It was also one of the most visible faces of youth conservatism: podcasts, radio shows, controversial interventions in university debates, a strong social presence. For many young people Sorceress (Make America Great Again, the slogan of the two Trump presidential campaigns, that is, we make America again) he was a bridge between high volume political rhetoric and concrete activist action.
There was no lack of criticism: many saw an extreme polarization in his activism, an indoBolite dialogue capacity, a tendency to simplifications or accusations towards “The left” as a cultural enemy. However, also for this reason, his voice counted: he was listened to, he was feared by those who considered him provocative, but influential.
Today’s America: clash, identity, a country on the edge
In the United States, polarization is no longer only political: it is cultural, social, media. What were once divergences on specific policies turned into identity divisions. School, genre, civil rights, migration, weapons: each of these issues is today a line of fault in which people do not only take sides for convictions, but for cultural belonging. And these same themes are often the subject of an aggressive rhetoric, of mutual demonization, of accusations that transcend the merit to become a clash on “Who you are” rather than “what do you think”.
When political violence enters public discourse as a concrete possibility – as today – then It is not just an accident: it is a signal that the unwritten rules of civil confrontation are fragally giving in. Each strong accusation, every incendiary tweet, every university speaker that points the finger intensifies the possibility that someone – or more than one – think that the use of force is a “natural” action when words are not enough.
Trump’s words, the scope of the murder and a dangerous ridge
After Kirk’s death, Donald Trump intervened with a video from the oval office, speaking not only as president but as the leader of an ideological wing that sees Kirk as a central figure. His words help to understand not only personal pain, but the way in which this event can be included in a larger political conflict scheme.
Among the strongest phrases: “This is a dark moment for America” (“This is a Dark Moment for America”). “Charlie inspired millions. And tonight all those who knew him and loved him are united in shock and horror. He is a patriot who dedicated his life to the cause of the open debate and the country he loved so much … It is a martyr in truth and freedom. It is time for all Americans and the media to face the fact that violence and murder are the tragic result of demonizing those who do not think like you day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible “.
Trump also promised that his government would seek “each of those who contributed to this atrocity”, including those who – according to him – with rhetoric, with support, with ideology have fueled hatred.
To where America goes, if you don’t hold back
Charlie Kirk’s death risks being a painful turning point. Not for its immediate consequences – the investigation, pain, anger – but for what it can anticipate.
Such an event can feed confidence in those who already claim that violence is the only tool that remained when the debate seems impotent; Give moral legitimacy – in the exactly perverse sense of the term – to those who use extreme language, which paints the opponent not only as an opponent but as an existential enemy. But also to make more difficult, almost suspicious, The attempt of mediation, of mutual understanding: when the parties live in fear, every attack, hard word, the wrong reaction risks triggering a spiral. Finally, give political force to those who raise the level of clash to make consent: Who denounces, those who ask for security, those who invoke punishment can attract those who feel threatened, victim of a system, victim of the culture of others.
Trump, in his words, hit the danger: not only the violent act in itself, but the climate that made it possible – the rhetoric that demonizes, which transforms the diversity of opinions in struggle for cultural survival. If that climate is not recognized, understood and circumvented, America risks going down again: not only returning to the bright tones, but to a horizon where political conflict becomes physical, where fear becomes part of the political commitment.
Conclusion: a crossroads in the desert
Charlie Kirk was not harmless: many of his ideas divided, irritated, pushed. But does his assassination raise a painful question: to what extent are we willing to allow violence to become not a tragedy, but an implicit medium in political conflict? Today’s America is already divided more deeply than many think. Not as during the civil war in the meaning armed with two opposite armies, but in daily experiences, in communities, in universities, in the media, in social media, in the sense that each word weighs, each accusation can expand a fracture.
Faced with this, the words of Trump – “A dark moment for America”, the complaint of the “radical rhetoric”, the appeal to stop demonization – are important. But they are not enough. If the pain leads only to denounce the other, if the anger crystallizes accusations, the risk is that the day after the event the polarization is even higher, the even more widespread fear, and those who are looking for a more peaceful, more reasoned dialogue, find themselves increasingly isolated.
Perhaps, however tragic, this moment can serve as a wake up: to rethink not only What Let’s say, but as We say it; not only Who we have as an opponent, but What kind of society We want to build – If one where the voice that does not think like you is first defense with words, not isolated, feared, or worse, violated.
Photo © Reuters
