Murder of a human being should always spark outrage. It is a violation of nearly every set of religious and ethical beliefs worldwide, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. (It is accepted as an act of declared war, and ¼ of governments justify it as punishment for a crime.)
Nowhere in these unified directives against individuals taking another’s life is there a statement that killing one person is worse (or better) than killing a different one. Modern laws do not specify different punishments for different victims, although America’s reality paints a different picture. But in our highest aspirations, stated in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal.”
Today, a popular, fictional, murder-solving character in Michael Connelly’s “Bosch” series explains, “Everybody counts, or nobody counts.” So the moral response to the murder of Charlie Kirk should be the same as to the murder of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (and her husband), the same as to the 22,000 other American murder victims yearly. But again, reality intrudes. None of us has the capacity to feel the deepest losses of all the mourning families and loved ones.
But collectively, I believe our modern government should set an example, just as the Founding Fathers attempted to do 250 years ago. In public actions, modern officials should seek consistency in honoring victims who took the time and energy to participate in government, regardless of their views. But the Trump administration did the opposite, clearly snubbing the Democratic victims in Minnesota, and many others, while stating (by flying flags at half-mast) that Charlie Kirk’s murder was more important than theirs, even if his civic contributions consisted of only a few years of speeches and podcasts. Why? Because they liked what he said.
I believe this type of hypocrisy (the pretense of virtue or beliefs one doesn’t possess) in politics and religion deserves a special circle in hell, but I realized that hypocrites are simply engaging in another type of lying. Clearly, the Trump administration are champion liars. Reputable fact-checking organizations reveal they tell them at a rate (to borrow a favorite Trump maximizing phrase) “we’ve never seen before.” The response to the murder of Charlie Kirk (not to his words or beliefs) puts two other instances of hypocritical lying in the spotlight.
First is the administration’s claim that Democrats incite and support political violence, while MAGA Republicans don’t. Rather than condemning the violence that ended in the death of a peaceful protester in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump signaled his support for violence against those seen as enemies: “There were some very fine people on both sides.” The insurrection of January 6, 2021 that destroyed federal property and caused at least two preventable deaths was borne of MAGA lies and saw the perpetrators rewarded with presidential praise and pardons.
The list of crazed, deadly gunmen who were MAGA followers is too long to ignore or consider a coincidence. Just recently, shooters targeted homeless encampments in Minneapolis after a Fox News host suggested killing homeless people was a remedy for the problem. A recent study of politically motivated murders in the U.S. from 2014-2023 shows that 76% were committed by right wing extremists and 4% by those on the left.
The second piece of blatant hypocrisy related to Kirk’s murder is the claim that Trump and MAGA are strong supporters of the First Amendment and free speech. MAGA and Trump strongly support Charlie Kirk’s right to conservative free speech but pull out all the stops in working to limit liberal free speech when it criticizes them. Already successful in getting shows canceled or journalists reprimanded for criticism of Trump and his policies (e.g., Terry Moran and Jimmy Kimmel of ABC; Bill Owens, executive director of 60 Minutes on CBS), the attorney general is explicitly threatening Trump critics for any “hate speech.” And what is hate speech? Anything that criticizes or mocks Trump.
On a personal level, we’re all hypocrites to some degree, but our government’s response to Kirk’s inexcusable murder should be held to a higher standard. Charlie Kirk had every right to say what he did, even if it provoked anger and division, just as Moran, Kimmel, and others do if they criticize Trump and promote anger and division. It’s up to the American public to assess whether they want to believe and support Kirk or Kimmel or someone in between. Silencing either side doesn’t bring us closer to the American ideal of a land where we are truly free to speak our mind.
Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. Comments are welcome at awoods2846@gmail.com.