Where is Charlie Kirk’s Counterpoint?

Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point organization succeeded because there was no equally articulate, equally well-organized counterpoint voice pushing back. Why not?

Prior to September 10, 2025, I had, thankfully, never heard of Charlie Kirk. When his name captured the news cycles for the next four days, I finally googled him and was horrified by what I learned. In life, Mr. Kirk was a masterful provocateur of hate-filled rhetoric, backed by a well-organized, multi-million-dollar organization that drew a remarkable following. In death, he suddenly became a larger-than-life national hero who had, in less than ten years, dramatically changed the American political landscape, and not for the better. Given what he stood for, I couldn’t help wondering how he accomplished all that he did in his short life, then was laid to rest in an American flag-draped coffin, an honor normally reserved for those who served our nation in the military or in high-level government service.

While Charlie Kirk had opinions on everything, they were often contradictory. He claimed to be a steadfast supporter of Israel yet was open about his antisemitic views. Among other things, he claimed that “The number one funding mechanism of radical, open border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits is Jewish donors.” He accused Jewish communities of promoting the same hatred against non-Jews as Jews themselves have been using to promote anti-whiteness, an effort largely financed by Jewish donors. He argued that antisemitism accusations were used as a weapon to restrict debate. “Once antisemitism becomes valid grounds to censor or even imprison somebody, there will be frantic efforts to label all kinds of speech as antisemitic – the same way the left labeled all kinds of statements as racist to justify silencing their opposition.” https://www.trtworld.com/article/c915eadce012

To be fair, Jews weren’t the only ones on Charlie Kirk’s vitriol-fueled radar. He viciously targeted Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Islamists, gays, and anybody else who wasn’t a conservative white Christian nationalist. He advocated for unrestricted gun rights, condemned abortion, believed women’s primary duties were as a wife and mother, and promoted men as heads of households. He bragged about sending 80 buses of supporters to Washington for the “Stop the Steal” rally that morphed into the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.  DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) was a foreign concept that likely never crossed his mind.

In the context of the viewpoint Charlie Kirk promoted, as an American Jew, I was shocked and saddened to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu refer to Mr.  Kirk as “a lionhearted friend of Israel” who “stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization.”  Why is Israel choosing to honor him when nothing about what he stood for makes the world better and everything he said flies in the face of the Tikkun Olam mandate to repair the world? Charlie Kirk adhered to a divide and conquer philosophy, and none of his goals centered around repairing the brokenness in the world.

Another truth about Charlie Kirk is that despite his ugly, divisive, deeply entrenched MAGA views, he was also an extremely effective social activist in the same league with Gandhi, Jesus, and Hitler, which is what made him so dangerous. Kirk not only knew how to manipulate his free speech rights to get what he wanted, he was masterful at energizing a crowd and drawing them into his divisive, racist views. As MAGA’s youth ambassador, he was tasked with engaging the next generation of American and world leaders on college campuses, and he delivered. From the social change perspective his strategy was extremely effective.

Despite his fame, Kirk was also merely another of the millions of ill-mannered bullies, hiding behind their free-speech rights who have not only managed to eradicate any semblance of common decency and respect for personal and political differences, they have become honored heroes for doing it. Even more distressing, the roadblocks on this highway to hell are nowhere evident.

Free speech is one of America’s most cherished values, one of its most important political rights, and a vital component of a people’s democracy. Charlie Kirk had the constitutional right to say what he said, and he didn’t deserve to be assassinated for his views, no matter how despicable or abhorrent. But he doesn’t deserve to be canonized either, which is the viewpoint of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, America’s highest ranking Catholic leader. https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/cardinal-dolan-calls-late-charlie-kirk-modern-day-st-paul-im-not-making. Kirk is not a martyr, a patriot, or a hero; he is merely another of the 1.5 million victims of America’s enduring love affair with guns, which he promoted, and has, over the last fifty years, resulted in more deaths than all of our wars combined.

It seems that those who want to immortalize Charlie Kirk are merely praising him for exercising his free speech rights, with no regard for how he abused those rights to promote hate, divisiveness, and discord. The staggering world-wide response to Kirk’s death has begged some very important questions: Was Kirk successful because Trump and the Maga movement have fully decimated the basic structures of the republican party, leaving a barren landscape upon which an energetic, articulate young man could build a robust, white nationalist political movement? Why hasn’t America’s other major political party been unable to launch an effective counterpoint to Kirk? Why isn’t there an engaging voice promoting liberal, progressive ideas out on the road in full public view, meeting the next generation of citizens and political leaders on the college campuses where their ideas are being formed and debated?  Why have compassion toward each other and the basic good manners needed to engage in civil discourse disappeared from our social and political surroundings?  What, exactly, will it take to pick up the pieces of the shattered world Mr. Kirk, and those like him, continue to create?

Admittedly, the answers to these questions are complicated and ultimately rest with we, the people. Meeting this challenge doesn’t force us to agree with, or even like, each other; it merely demands that we respect each other. It asks us to remember that free speech is about civil discourse, not silencing dissent and that while hate is easy, respect is easier; children learn it in nursery school.

Shalom aleichem

שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם