Kirk’s Assassination and the Left’s Elitist Condescension

There is no equivalency between the propensity of the left and right to commit, endorse, justify, glorify, and cover up political violence.

The left and its assassination culture

In April, the non-partisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued “Assassination Culture,” which explained that based on extensive polling and analysis, “tolerance – and even advocacy – for political violence appears to have surged, especially among politically left-leaning segments of the population…. [W]idespread justification for lethal violence – including assassination – among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users,” and an “assassination culture” is emerging on the extreme left.

NCRI concluded that these “attitudes are not fringe—they reï¬?ect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms—particularly BlueSky—play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”

The left dominates in its broad and increasing support for violence, and in the overall quantum of violence. Its leaders encourage, condone, and implicitly and explicitly threaten violence. However, the media, academia, and think tanks focus on fatalities, where, particularly because of the Oklahoma City bombing in which 168 died, the right leads the gruesome tally.

The left doesn’t have a monopoly on violence, but they do commit most of it

“Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence,” a study published by the Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, acknowledges that violence from the left is increasing, but concludes that from 1990 to 2020, the far-left was responsible for 42 deaths, and the far-right for 227, including the Oklahoma City bombing. A recent Cato report for the overlapping period since 2020 allocated 18 political murders to the left and 44 to the right. While the reports rely on some questionable and inconsistent data, it is likely that since 1990 the right has been responsible for a majority of political homicides.

Neither faction can sidestep culpability for these deaths. The left also is responsible for thousands harmed during riots by arson, looting, property damage, and physical altercations, as well as nearly 500 attacks at pro-life pregnancy centers and churches. Since 1986, there also have been at least 188 ideologically motivated stabbings, beatings, and acts of property damage committed by those on the left.

A 2024 study from the non-partisan New Lines Institute, “Violent Left-Wing Extremism Is Becoming More Dangerous,” explains that far-left violence focuses on property damage and “oft-destructive but non-fatal ‘direct action’.” And “Assassination Culture” confirms that far-left violence often involves occupying buildings, blocking roads, harassment, vandalism, sabotage, arson, and assault, including stabbings, shootings, vehicular assault, kidnappings, and explosions.

The right does not retaliate violently, as the left does

Over the last 30 years, the left was responsible for every major demonstration except Jan. 6, many of which turned violent. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the attempts on Donald Trump, there was no violence. By contrast, the left often responds with violence to arrests, ICE raids, deaths, convictions, and court decisions of which it disapproves.

A study of the 2020 George Floyd protests by the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that unlawful acts occurred in 42% of the 8,700 demonstrations, and that about 7% turned violent. More than 2,000 police officers from 72% of the major cities were injured. There were 2,385 reports of looting, and 56% of the cities reported arson. Hundreds of police cars were destroyed.

RealClearInvestigations concluded that compared to Jan. 6, the 2020 riots resulted in 15 times more injured police officers, and property damage 740 times more costly. In the 2020 riots, insurance claims alone were about $2 billion, and more than 20 people were killed by protestors.

Except for Trump, particularly during his first term, and a few members of Congress, it is rare for respected Republicans to use invective or terminology that might incite violence. By contrast, mainstream Democrats regularly do so. They have insisted, ad nauseam, that Republicans are “fascists,” “Nazis,” and an “existential threat to democracy” – offenses for which America goes to war to kill its opponents.

Trying to deny it

Paradoxically, the left downplays or even denies its violence. The media immediately identifies Christian, straight, white, male aggressors, while suppressing the backgrounds of blacks, illegal aliens, and LGBTQ assailants. The “mostly peaceful” trope is a lie.

Even after Utah’s governor, investigators, and the family and friends of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin described his radicalization on the left, and the prosecution released confirming texts, Democrat elected officials, news anchors, and Jimmy Kimmel, among many others, continue to suggest that he is MAGA, or that his ideology or motivations are unknown.

In a Sept. 10 YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence to achieve political goals is acceptable, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative. Almost identical responses were given to a question on whether the respondent would be “happy” about the death of a political opponent.

Condescension will lead to more violence

NCRI’s analysis shows that “support for political violence [on the Left] – including property destruction and assassination – is … part of a tightly interconnected belief system … in which violence is seen as a legitimate political response.” NCRI astutely observes that this belief system is “characterized by moral absolutism, punitive attitudes toward ideological opponents, and a willingness to use coercion for progressive aims.”

Violence on both sides must end. However, with the momentum, amorality, and greatest threat now from the left, violence won’t abate while the left maintains its elitist condescension to those who live by conservative principles.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.