There are similarities, but not due to oppression. In both cases there is a sense of “there but for the grace of God go I.” Black people looked at a video of a black man under the boot of a white police officer, and saw themselves in his place. Conservatives see a man shot for publicly stating opinions that the left doesn’t like, and see the same thing happening to them. Compounding that are the thousands of videos showing leftists openly celebrating the murder, cheering, dancing, laughing, and mocking. Not only that, it turns out that many of those people are teachers, college professors, doctors, and nurses. And keep in mind that for every one posting an “I’m glad Kirk is dead” video, there are probably a hundred more saying it privately or thinking it to themselves. So, not only are conservatives able to imaging themselves being killed for their beliefs (as black people imagined themselves being killed for being black) they also have proof that their deaths will be celebrated, perhaps by the people educating their children, or who will “care” for them when they are sick or injured.
I think the writer is way off base. There is no real parallel between the assassination of Charlie Kirk for ideological reasons and the unintended death of George Floyd by an overzealous police officer. Kirk’s murder is an attack not on an identity group but on the very notion of free speech and expression in a free democratic society. Kirk was murdered because of his beliefs and his willingness to engage in democratic dialogue and debate. This is beyond—or should be beyond—identity group concerns. Conservatives are not upset because one of theirs was killed. They are upset because this underscores the message coming from most liberal controlled institutions that citizens with conservative or religious viewpoints are not welcome; that there is no place for them in our nation’s public square. The assassination is aimed at silencing those whose opinions we disagree with; this is intended to be a death blow to the foundations of our democracy much worse than the actual or perceived suppression of an identity group.
Thanks for writing this. I don't think it's just white conservatives who have been affected by Kirk's death. Hopefully this is a moment which separates all kinds of people who oppose violence from the rest of us.
I agree with many of your points, and find your analysis thoughtful and insightful, presenting angles one won't likely find in the awful mainstream content space. I particularly appreciate you pointing out why the Left put itself in Floyd's shoes, so to speak, and the difference between that and why Conservatives, particularly Christians, are doing the same after Kirk's assassination.
However, it is important to also emphasize some differences. First, the visceral reaction of Leftists versus Conservatives after these two events is notably dissimilar. When Floyd died, cities and businesses burned, livelihoods were destroyed, and more lives were lost. When Kirk was gunned down, people wept and prayed. Businesses who believe that their employees should not be gleefully and publicly celebrating Kirk's death are firing people, based on the uncivil and flat-out ghoulish behavior by those individuals. That isn't canceling, it's consequences. If one of my employees did that, that's not what I'd want my business associated with. I do not see this as the same thing that happened during the "cancel years" based on wokeness.
Second, I don't recall mass and public celebration over the death of Floyd, through mainstream media talk shows, newscasts, celebrities, celebrations in the streets, or the like. (I lived within 5-6 miles of the actual incident in MN when it happened, so my perspective is based on very close proximity.) As always, individual bad actors may have said or thought uncivil, cruel and inflammatory remarks about Floyd. The Left's response to Kirk's death, however, has been widespread and deplorable, no pun intended.
The third difference, and probably the most difficult to express, is the fact that Kirk was gunned down, deliberately, premeditatedly, by a fringe lunatic who disagreed with Kirk's beliefs and opinions. Floyd's death has been attributed to numerous factors by medical examiners, witnesses and the evidence either presented at trial or suppressed at trial, leaving his primary cause of death still an unsettled question. What's most important is that Floyd did not "deserve" to die. His criminal history didn't make his death okay, acceptable or something to be celebrated. He was a human being, like the rest of us. Sadly, some Leftists are still arguing that Kirk deserved to die because of statements he made and because of his beliefs.
Did the police officers premeditate his death? Likely not. Did Floyd himself negligently contribute to his own death? None of us can or should answer that; it's up to the investigators and medical professionals working on the case. For Kirk, there's no ambiguity or inquiry; a deranged person planned to and then deliberately murdered him, in public.
While these two deaths were dissimilar in factual ways, as you point out (in my opinion, rightfully so), the aftereffects have been similar. I applaud your wisdom in noting this especially important similarity. The response of these two events is overlooked in corporate media sources, so it's important others consider your thesis here.
Finally, in my opinion, Kirk was murdered not primarily because he stated opinions that the Left cannot handle, walk away from, dismiss, disagree with or just debate, although that was part of it. He was murdered because the very mention of Jesus Christ of Nazareth inflames the core being of many who believe not only that there is no God, but that they themselves are their own "god." Kirk mentioned Christ at nearly every one of his public appearances.
The war on Christians is already in progress, something I have spoken to Christians about pretty regularly since the rise of anti-Semitism in America has taken root. We're next, and now it's here.
If we had more content like your piece reaching people, we might stand a chance as a nation. Please keep writing. In Kirk's memory, we all should do our part to encourage civil discourse and debate. I don't have to agree with every single word of your essay in order to applaud it and see great merit in your insight and crisp, clean writing. And certainly, you don't have to agree with my points to see that I present them respectfully and in good faith. I hope others take note of your ideas and respond likewise. Your analysis is worthy of serious consideration.
I think a more apt comparison is Charlie Kirk and Melissa Hortman. An (apparently devout) Christian named Vance Boelter impersonated a police officer, killed a legislator and her husband, attempted to murder someone else, and was found to have a kill list of 50-something others...only a three months ago. So I'm not really convinced about the 'war on Christians' in America bit. Seems to me like American Christians pushing that idea contributed negatively to Vance Boelter's murderous mind state. But perhaps all these murders are not really about ideology but a rot that goes much deeper...
Could be, but you also have to look at how the US reacted after MLK jr's assassination -- someone else who was controversial in his lifetime (both within and without his movement) but who has become a secular saint. There are points of commonality between King and Kirk -- both with their great love of Christianity and its message as well as democratic values and indeed nonviolent methods such as debate and dialogue to influence. Both left young families. (Yes, I know they would also probably disagree on much but wouldn't a debate between the two have been enlightening?)
Harvey Milk and George Moscone are other examples of politicians who were criticized in their lifetime but through political assassination achieved a certain secular sainthood.
I think people need time to grieve and to remember how Americans treat those who are slain through political violence. There is always a vibe shift.
Now is the time to emphasize those democratic and Christian values which both King and Kirk so emphatically stood for. It is not a time to allow revenge and political point scoring.
Matthew 24:5 is apt here: "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."
And yes there are many people call themselves Christian or a specific religious domination and who act against the teachings of that religion. The word which accurately describes them is hypocrite.
However, if you look at the pre-Christian world, you will see that one of the big selling points for the religion is forgiveness and rejecting the whole eye for an eye mindset.
Because Christianity underpins Western thought, it is why the concepts of debate and dialogue and democracy were developed and popularized rather than tyranny or the necessity of a 'strong man' ruler which allows for advocating the murder of one's political opponents.
The concept of political enfranchisement for all philosophical beliefs is the one thing which makes the US exceptional as it originated in the US. It starts with the concept of religious freedom because you can't have equality under the law without it.
NB It took a long time to achieve and one must always guard against the desire to politically disenfranchise. I really didn't understand this point until I read Iran: A Modern History. Political enfranchisement is very much the water Americans swim in.
There is always this tension between democracy and totalitarianism and it is about how to stop the spiral of political violence and extremism.
I wish more people who call themselves Christian would follow what Jesus preached. Unfortunately revenge is having a moment. Hopefully the violence will stop.
I too wish people will actually understood what Jesus preached and why his message of love and turning the other cheek with strength through moral courage has been responsible for such good in this world.
Too often people have donned the mantel of Christian for their own nefarious purposes.
Sometimes all we can do is hope and pray.
If this allows the US to step back from the abyss which is extreme polarization, then that is good. No one should rejoice in another's death, particularly not from political violence. Attack ideas, not people.
Revenge is specifically mentioned in the Bible with the following instruction: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." No practicing Christian espouses revenge. Not sure what the basis for your statement is, but I know it isn't the Bible.
I think revenge is a human emotion and something which Jesus preached against (let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). Kirk was apparently all about the need to talk to everyone as that was something Jesus preached. I believe King would approve of that sentiment. Love thy neighbour as yourself.
It is about not allowing the anger to burn wildly like jet fuel without an engine, but harnessing it for good. Righteous anger can accomplish much. A good outcome would be if people embraced the values of democracy including the need for debate and turned their back on political violence. Compulsion and coercion are used by totalitarians. People who believe in democracy reject that.
Political violence has taken too many good people who wanted to make a positive difference to people's lives. It should be rejected.
Regarding people who lost their jobs: the left cancelled people for using the wrong pronouns (which are fluid and individually decided); the right is "consequencing" people for celebrating a murder (an act which is "universally" condemned). In no way are those two actions equal.
Also, you mention Twitter as giving conservatives more of a voice. I suspect Blue Sky is also doing that for liberals. The point here is that instead of using one platform for All to discourse and try to find some common ground, we've now broken into two, which further exacerbates the divide.
Definitely thought-provoking, but I truly wish we could come up with solutions.......
As a white man, I certainly do not think that whites are “oppressed.” At the same time, in our current highly tense cultural moment, I think it is difficult to be a believing Christian and talk about that faith in the public forum and be taken seriously. Charlie Kirk was somebody who could do that, and do it with great success, especially among young people. The main takeaway from the events of the past week: words are not violence, or, to quote Charlie, when the words stop, bad stuff happens. Let’s go forward having fair and honest debates, but without violence.
And, while it is true that whites have been singled out as whites, this is a half-truth because conservative blacks also get the same treatment. We need to remember we share the same suppression and fate.
There is something to this. There are certainly similarities and differences. But we're living in some crazy times. I wouldn't dare predict anything, but I'm expecting a lot of bad.
That funeral will tell us a lot I believe. I do not expect but so many reassuring words of conciliation.
I think this author has very little insight into how most "conservatives" view the world. We don't see the world through the neo-Marxist "oppressor-victim" duality - we see people, some bad, most good. Further, the assertion that the Trump White House is beholden only to "white conservatives" misses the ongoing political realignment, with a plurality of Hispanics now identifying as Republican, and black men under the age of 30 also in a Republican plurality.
While the left has spent the last 30 years in an intellectual orgy of racialist spoils, the rest of the country has been building a series of overlapping coalitions largely organized around faith and local community.
The Democratic Party of 2025 is far whiter than just 5 years ago, far wealthier, and increasingly geographically condensed in urban areas. In fact, there is a now a direct correlation in party affiliation - the whiter and richer you are, the more likely you are to identify as Democratic or progressive.
The multi-ethnic working-class party the Democrats dreamed of building now exists - only it's not their party.
This is no "George Floyd" moment - it's more of a Kent State moment, when the working class majority realizes that the entitled adult children of the former ruling class are not giving up their sense of entitlement and privilege without resorting to violence.
Kent State would, within a decade, lead to the so-called Reagan Revolution.
Given the ongoing national political realignment and the increasingly desperate rhetoric of Democratic leader as they watch their party bleed voters, the ruling class' violence may be even bloodier this time.
But that doesn't make us feel victimized.
It only strengthens our resolve to meet violence with votes.
While I appreciate the author's insight into the similarities between the response to Floyd's death and the response to Kirk's death, I also agree that the Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to that of the 1960s-70s through even 15 years ago. Today's "democrat" is unrecognizable to those of the JFK years. And you are correct, the neo-Marxist lens is something "democrats" have caved to by a fringe element who aren't actually democrats but who are communist/anarchists seeking to oppress whomever disagrees with them. You know, old fashioned fascism.
I do believe you’re on the right path on the impact of Charlie Kirk’s death.
I believe it’s similar to BLM and MeToo in raising the consciousness of people in the country on the very different perspectives people based on their cultural alignment.
I don’t subscribe to intersectional categories that you focus on - ie white versus Black, str8 vs LGBTQ, men vs woman. I believe using the intersectional lens distorts the reality that it’s based on culture not genetics.
Charlie Kirk did not appeal to all “white” people or specifically str8 men. There are Black and LGBTQ and many woman who supported Charlie Kirk’s perspectives on traditional culture.
The country is divided culturally, not racially or sexually. Those categories certain factor into defining the % representation in the Kirk supports but they don’t define the Kirk supports.
The first step to uniting the country is to move away from genetics as the defining difference to culture. The federal government is trying to define a homogeneous culture. The country is too culturally diverse to do that. That is the fundamental challenge with the structure of the federal government.
Both Republicans and Democrats are the problem because they both want to refine the country in their view of the “right” cultural values. I’ll conclude with this. Democrats and Republicans are two cheeks of the same ass shitting on we the people. The only growing “party” are independents. But we have no real way of avoiding being forced to choose between a democrat or republican.
Romans 12: 17-21 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
While I appreciate your call for calm reflection and caution, the premise of "White Christians" and "White Conservatives" is distastefully untrue. I myself included, many Christians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds find ourselves deeply impacted by Kirk's assassination because he stood boldly and unapologetically in proclaiming the gospel.
By the same token, those activated/motivated by Floyd's death could by no means be characterized by a caricature of "black liberals," "non-white non-Christians"? I am not saying these characterizations are explicitly used in your essay. But if you were to draw a parallel between the two events and attribute the latter to reactions of "white conservative" and "white christians," the opposite assumption must be a logical implication.
Perhaps, the decisive variables are faith and persuasion, without any racial categorization.
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" - C.S. Lewis
Hoping for better outcomes from this moment. Unless individuals in our society learn to respect the ideas and choices of others (not endorse those ideas necessarily but respect their right to exist), we will be stuck in the cycle of who is wrong today. We deserve better. We can do better at the feet of God alone.
There are similarities, but not due to oppression. In both cases there is a sense of “there but for the grace of God go I.” Black people looked at a video of a black man under the boot of a white police officer, and saw themselves in his place. Conservatives see a man shot for publicly stating opinions that the left doesn’t like, and see the same thing happening to them. Compounding that are the thousands of videos showing leftists openly celebrating the murder, cheering, dancing, laughing, and mocking. Not only that, it turns out that many of those people are teachers, college professors, doctors, and nurses. And keep in mind that for every one posting an “I’m glad Kirk is dead” video, there are probably a hundred more saying it privately or thinking it to themselves. So, not only are conservatives able to imaging themselves being killed for their beliefs (as black people imagined themselves being killed for being black) they also have proof that their deaths will be celebrated, perhaps by the people educating their children, or who will “care” for them when they are sick or injured.
I think the writer is way off base. There is no real parallel between the assassination of Charlie Kirk for ideological reasons and the unintended death of George Floyd by an overzealous police officer. Kirk’s murder is an attack not on an identity group but on the very notion of free speech and expression in a free democratic society. Kirk was murdered because of his beliefs and his willingness to engage in democratic dialogue and debate. This is beyond—or should be beyond—identity group concerns. Conservatives are not upset because one of theirs was killed. They are upset because this underscores the message coming from most liberal controlled institutions that citizens with conservative or religious viewpoints are not welcome; that there is no place for them in our nation’s public square. The assassination is aimed at silencing those whose opinions we disagree with; this is intended to be a death blow to the foundations of our democracy much worse than the actual or perceived suppression of an identity group.
Very well said and so true.
Thanks for writing this. I don't think it's just white conservatives who have been affected by Kirk's death. Hopefully this is a moment which separates all kinds of people who oppose violence from the rest of us.
I agree with many of your points, and find your analysis thoughtful and insightful, presenting angles one won't likely find in the awful mainstream content space. I particularly appreciate you pointing out why the Left put itself in Floyd's shoes, so to speak, and the difference between that and why Conservatives, particularly Christians, are doing the same after Kirk's assassination.
However, it is important to also emphasize some differences. First, the visceral reaction of Leftists versus Conservatives after these two events is notably dissimilar. When Floyd died, cities and businesses burned, livelihoods were destroyed, and more lives were lost. When Kirk was gunned down, people wept and prayed. Businesses who believe that their employees should not be gleefully and publicly celebrating Kirk's death are firing people, based on the uncivil and flat-out ghoulish behavior by those individuals. That isn't canceling, it's consequences. If one of my employees did that, that's not what I'd want my business associated with. I do not see this as the same thing that happened during the "cancel years" based on wokeness.
Second, I don't recall mass and public celebration over the death of Floyd, through mainstream media talk shows, newscasts, celebrities, celebrations in the streets, or the like. (I lived within 5-6 miles of the actual incident in MN when it happened, so my perspective is based on very close proximity.) As always, individual bad actors may have said or thought uncivil, cruel and inflammatory remarks about Floyd. The Left's response to Kirk's death, however, has been widespread and deplorable, no pun intended.
The third difference, and probably the most difficult to express, is the fact that Kirk was gunned down, deliberately, premeditatedly, by a fringe lunatic who disagreed with Kirk's beliefs and opinions. Floyd's death has been attributed to numerous factors by medical examiners, witnesses and the evidence either presented at trial or suppressed at trial, leaving his primary cause of death still an unsettled question. What's most important is that Floyd did not "deserve" to die. His criminal history didn't make his death okay, acceptable or something to be celebrated. He was a human being, like the rest of us. Sadly, some Leftists are still arguing that Kirk deserved to die because of statements he made and because of his beliefs.
Did the police officers premeditate his death? Likely not. Did Floyd himself negligently contribute to his own death? None of us can or should answer that; it's up to the investigators and medical professionals working on the case. For Kirk, there's no ambiguity or inquiry; a deranged person planned to and then deliberately murdered him, in public.
While these two deaths were dissimilar in factual ways, as you point out (in my opinion, rightfully so), the aftereffects have been similar. I applaud your wisdom in noting this especially important similarity. The response of these two events is overlooked in corporate media sources, so it's important others consider your thesis here.
Finally, in my opinion, Kirk was murdered not primarily because he stated opinions that the Left cannot handle, walk away from, dismiss, disagree with or just debate, although that was part of it. He was murdered because the very mention of Jesus Christ of Nazareth inflames the core being of many who believe not only that there is no God, but that they themselves are their own "god." Kirk mentioned Christ at nearly every one of his public appearances.
The war on Christians is already in progress, something I have spoken to Christians about pretty regularly since the rise of anti-Semitism in America has taken root. We're next, and now it's here.
If we had more content like your piece reaching people, we might stand a chance as a nation. Please keep writing. In Kirk's memory, we all should do our part to encourage civil discourse and debate. I don't have to agree with every single word of your essay in order to applaud it and see great merit in your insight and crisp, clean writing. And certainly, you don't have to agree with my points to see that I present them respectfully and in good faith. I hope others take note of your ideas and respond likewise. Your analysis is worthy of serious consideration.
I think a more apt comparison is Charlie Kirk and Melissa Hortman. An (apparently devout) Christian named Vance Boelter impersonated a police officer, killed a legislator and her husband, attempted to murder someone else, and was found to have a kill list of 50-something others...only a three months ago. So I'm not really convinced about the 'war on Christians' in America bit. Seems to me like American Christians pushing that idea contributed negatively to Vance Boelter's murderous mind state. But perhaps all these murders are not really about ideology but a rot that goes much deeper...
What a thoughtful and insightful comment! I hope many heed your call for increased civil discourse. Thank you for contributing to it here!
Could be, but you also have to look at how the US reacted after MLK jr's assassination -- someone else who was controversial in his lifetime (both within and without his movement) but who has become a secular saint. There are points of commonality between King and Kirk -- both with their great love of Christianity and its message as well as democratic values and indeed nonviolent methods such as debate and dialogue to influence. Both left young families. (Yes, I know they would also probably disagree on much but wouldn't a debate between the two have been enlightening?)
Harvey Milk and George Moscone are other examples of politicians who were criticized in their lifetime but through political assassination achieved a certain secular sainthood.
I think people need time to grieve and to remember how Americans treat those who are slain through political violence. There is always a vibe shift.
Now is the time to emphasize those democratic and Christian values which both King and Kirk so emphatically stood for. It is not a time to allow revenge and political point scoring.
I’m not referring to the biblical context, only people who call themselves Christian. I don’t know if these people are “practicing Christians” or not.
Matthew 24:5 is apt here: "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."
And yes there are many people call themselves Christian or a specific religious domination and who act against the teachings of that religion. The word which accurately describes them is hypocrite.
However, if you look at the pre-Christian world, you will see that one of the big selling points for the religion is forgiveness and rejecting the whole eye for an eye mindset.
Because Christianity underpins Western thought, it is why the concepts of debate and dialogue and democracy were developed and popularized rather than tyranny or the necessity of a 'strong man' ruler which allows for advocating the murder of one's political opponents.
The concept of political enfranchisement for all philosophical beliefs is the one thing which makes the US exceptional as it originated in the US. It starts with the concept of religious freedom because you can't have equality under the law without it.
NB It took a long time to achieve and one must always guard against the desire to politically disenfranchise. I really didn't understand this point until I read Iran: A Modern History. Political enfranchisement is very much the water Americans swim in.
There is always this tension between democracy and totalitarianism and it is about how to stop the spiral of political violence and extremism.
I wish more people who call themselves Christian would follow what Jesus preached. Unfortunately revenge is having a moment. Hopefully the violence will stop.
I too wish people will actually understood what Jesus preached and why his message of love and turning the other cheek with strength through moral courage has been responsible for such good in this world.
Too often people have donned the mantel of Christian for their own nefarious purposes.
Sometimes all we can do is hope and pray.
If this allows the US to step back from the abyss which is extreme polarization, then that is good. No one should rejoice in another's death, particularly not from political violence. Attack ideas, not people.
I agree with your point but revenge is also a Christian value. That’s why we are fearful of what will come next.
Revenge is specifically mentioned in the Bible with the following instruction: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." No practicing Christian espouses revenge. Not sure what the basis for your statement is, but I know it isn't the Bible.
I think revenge is a human emotion and something which Jesus preached against (let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). Kirk was apparently all about the need to talk to everyone as that was something Jesus preached. I believe King would approve of that sentiment. Love thy neighbour as yourself.
It is about not allowing the anger to burn wildly like jet fuel without an engine, but harnessing it for good. Righteous anger can accomplish much. A good outcome would be if people embraced the values of democracy including the need for debate and turned their back on political violence. Compulsion and coercion are used by totalitarians. People who believe in democracy reject that.
Political violence has taken too many good people who wanted to make a positive difference to people's lives. It should be rejected.
Well written article and comments.
Regarding people who lost their jobs: the left cancelled people for using the wrong pronouns (which are fluid and individually decided); the right is "consequencing" people for celebrating a murder (an act which is "universally" condemned). In no way are those two actions equal.
Also, you mention Twitter as giving conservatives more of a voice. I suspect Blue Sky is also doing that for liberals. The point here is that instead of using one platform for All to discourse and try to find some common ground, we've now broken into two, which further exacerbates the divide.
Definitely thought-provoking, but I truly wish we could come up with solutions.......
As a white man, I certainly do not think that whites are “oppressed.” At the same time, in our current highly tense cultural moment, I think it is difficult to be a believing Christian and talk about that faith in the public forum and be taken seriously. Charlie Kirk was somebody who could do that, and do it with great success, especially among young people. The main takeaway from the events of the past week: words are not violence, or, to quote Charlie, when the words stop, bad stuff happens. Let’s go forward having fair and honest debates, but without violence.
Agreed mostly. The word to describe what the Left has done to conservatives of all races for the past 4 decades is suppression, with some exceptions.
Suppression, not oppression = agree!👍
And, while it is true that whites have been singled out as whites, this is a half-truth because conservative blacks also get the same treatment. We need to remember we share the same suppression and fate.
100%
100%👍
A people's heros says quite a lot about them.
Well they made a national day of remembrance for Charlie Kirk on George Floyd's literal birthday...so there's that.
You made me check, because I had read that Kirk's was on his birth date. And it is; coincidentally, both were born on October 14th, 20 years apart.
There is something to this. There are certainly similarities and differences. But we're living in some crazy times. I wouldn't dare predict anything, but I'm expecting a lot of bad.
That funeral will tell us a lot I believe. I do not expect but so many reassuring words of conciliation.
George Floyd protests? Seriously?
I would call them riots with looting and arson.
Astute analysis.
I think this author has very little insight into how most "conservatives" view the world. We don't see the world through the neo-Marxist "oppressor-victim" duality - we see people, some bad, most good. Further, the assertion that the Trump White House is beholden only to "white conservatives" misses the ongoing political realignment, with a plurality of Hispanics now identifying as Republican, and black men under the age of 30 also in a Republican plurality.
While the left has spent the last 30 years in an intellectual orgy of racialist spoils, the rest of the country has been building a series of overlapping coalitions largely organized around faith and local community.
The Democratic Party of 2025 is far whiter than just 5 years ago, far wealthier, and increasingly geographically condensed in urban areas. In fact, there is a now a direct correlation in party affiliation - the whiter and richer you are, the more likely you are to identify as Democratic or progressive.
The multi-ethnic working-class party the Democrats dreamed of building now exists - only it's not their party.
This is no "George Floyd" moment - it's more of a Kent State moment, when the working class majority realizes that the entitled adult children of the former ruling class are not giving up their sense of entitlement and privilege without resorting to violence.
Kent State would, within a decade, lead to the so-called Reagan Revolution.
Given the ongoing national political realignment and the increasingly desperate rhetoric of Democratic leader as they watch their party bleed voters, the ruling class' violence may be even bloodier this time.
But that doesn't make us feel victimized.
It only strengthens our resolve to meet violence with votes.
While I appreciate the author's insight into the similarities between the response to Floyd's death and the response to Kirk's death, I also agree that the Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to that of the 1960s-70s through even 15 years ago. Today's "democrat" is unrecognizable to those of the JFK years. And you are correct, the neo-Marxist lens is something "democrats" have caved to by a fringe element who aren't actually democrats but who are communist/anarchists seeking to oppress whomever disagrees with them. You know, old fashioned fascism.
I do believe you’re on the right path on the impact of Charlie Kirk’s death.
I believe it’s similar to BLM and MeToo in raising the consciousness of people in the country on the very different perspectives people based on their cultural alignment.
I don’t subscribe to intersectional categories that you focus on - ie white versus Black, str8 vs LGBTQ, men vs woman. I believe using the intersectional lens distorts the reality that it’s based on culture not genetics.
Charlie Kirk did not appeal to all “white” people or specifically str8 men. There are Black and LGBTQ and many woman who supported Charlie Kirk’s perspectives on traditional culture.
The country is divided culturally, not racially or sexually. Those categories certain factor into defining the % representation in the Kirk supports but they don’t define the Kirk supports.
The first step to uniting the country is to move away from genetics as the defining difference to culture. The federal government is trying to define a homogeneous culture. The country is too culturally diverse to do that. That is the fundamental challenge with the structure of the federal government.
Both Republicans and Democrats are the problem because they both want to refine the country in their view of the “right” cultural values. I’ll conclude with this. Democrats and Republicans are two cheeks of the same ass shitting on we the people. The only growing “party” are independents. But we have no real way of avoiding being forced to choose between a democrat or republican.
Romans 12: 17-21 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
While I appreciate your call for calm reflection and caution, the premise of "White Christians" and "White Conservatives" is distastefully untrue. I myself included, many Christians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds find ourselves deeply impacted by Kirk's assassination because he stood boldly and unapologetically in proclaiming the gospel.
By the same token, those activated/motivated by Floyd's death could by no means be characterized by a caricature of "black liberals," "non-white non-Christians"? I am not saying these characterizations are explicitly used in your essay. But if you were to draw a parallel between the two events and attribute the latter to reactions of "white conservative" and "white christians," the opposite assumption must be a logical implication.
Perhaps, the decisive variables are faith and persuasion, without any racial categorization.
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" - C.S. Lewis
Hoping for better outcomes from this moment. Unless individuals in our society learn to respect the ideas and choices of others (not endorse those ideas necessarily but respect their right to exist), we will be stuck in the cycle of who is wrong today. We deserve better. We can do better at the feet of God alone.