Now it is disintegrating

"This is a good country. It is a great country. And now it is disintegrating." -Cynthia Ozick in The Wall Street Journal, September 5, 2025

The assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk last week at Utah Valley University represents a profound and disturbing escalation in the cycle of political violence that has plagued the United States. Both an attack on a young husband and father as well as a direct assault on the First Amendment and the constitutional order, the event is not only deeply tragic, but represents a stark warning about how platforms designed for open exchange become vectors for radicalization. Kirk, who often positioned himself as an avatar for free speech, harnessed social media to promote conservative ideals and debate, but the very ecosystem that enabled his success catalyzed actors on both extremes, from the Antifa-inspired assailants to far-right conspiracy theorists like Candace Owens who amplify hatred and misinformation. This duality demands scrutiny, as it reveals the brittleness of civil discourse in the age of the algorithm.

To understand Kirk's role as a free speech champion, we must first consider his foundational work with Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the organization he cofounded at age 18 in 2012. TPUSA positioned itself as a bulwark against the progressive monoculture on college campuses, advocating for unrestricted expression of viewpoints. Kirk frequently sued universities under First Amendment claims when his events faced disruptions, arguing that such resistance was an assault on free speech. His signature "change my mind" forums--interactive debates where he engaged students on topics from transgender rights to gun control--embodied this ethos, drawing massive online audiences for often confrontational exchanges. Even critics acknowledged that Kirk modeled public argumentation, fostering dialogues that, while polarizing, brought diverse views into collision on a mass scale. Despite controversies surrounding TPUSA's "Professor Watchlist," which targeted progressive educators stymying free speech in their classrooms, Kirk preached free speech through spectacle, using it both to rally young conservatives and challenge progressive dominance in academia.

Kirk's success stemmed from his adept navigation of internet culture, transforming social media into a platform for activism. If this seems trite now, it wasn't when when Kirk founded TPUSA and began engaging with conservative leaders in 2011-2012. Platforms like Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok became extensions of Kirk's campus tours, where clips of him "crushing woke lies" amassed billions of views. He pioneered a hybrid model: fiery on-campus clashes with progressive students that went viral, driving engagement and donations to TPUSA, which grew to over 3,500 campus chapters and an $80 million annual budget. Kirk's rhetoric--provocative declarations laced with his quick evidentiary recall--evidently resonated with Gen Z, blending social media-era lingo with in-person mobilization. His podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, reached half a million listeners monthly, while events like AmericaFest drew tens of thousands with pyrotechnics and celebrity appearances, echoing stadium concerns. This approach not only amplified conservative youth turnout--widely credited with tipping scales in the 2024 election--but also incubated a fandom where Kirk's extemporaneous style positioned him as a defender of unfiltered truth in opposition to "cancel culture."

Yet, the same internet culture that propelled Kirk's free speech advocacy has proven double-edged, enabling extremism from both ideological flanks. On the left, the assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, exemplified how online radicalization can culminate in violence. Authorities described Robinson as harboring left-leaning views with a "deep hatred" for Kirk, influenced by Antifa-like ideologies, as evidenced by the engravings on his bullets, which, among other things, invoke Antifa slogans. Even as I write this, FBI director Kash Patel is testifying before Congress, revealing that Robinson disclosed his plans ahead of time to dozens of users of a far-left Discord server. Vice President Vance attributed the act to a "growing and powerful minority on the far left," noting that the digital echo chamber normalizes violence against perceived oppressors. Kirk himself warned of "assassination culture" on the left, citing disruptions by Antifa activists that forced event cancellations. In the aftermath, celebratory posts from all across social media highlighted the impulsive extremism that blurs the lines between rhetoric and action.

Conversely, the far right has exploited the tragedy to peddle conspiracy theories, with Candace Owens (not surprisingly) emerging as a prominent example. Owens has insinuated foul play (blaming everyone but the shooter), alleging ties to Mossad or internal MAGA rivalries, drawing rebuke from TPUSA senior staff as well as Kirk's pastor, Rob McCoy. This mirrors broader far-right responses: influencers like Enrique Tarrio and Steward Rhodes called for "war" and "state violence," while extremists who despised Kirk as insufficiently radical--such as white nationalists or those viewing him as too pro-Israel--used his death for recruitment. Owens's history of endorsing antisemitic tropes, from Holocaust minimization to "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracies, illustrates how the same viral mechanisms Kirk employed for debate can also be used to fuel disinformation that erodes trust and incites further violence. The Utah governor's address after Robinson's arrest (it's worth watching in full) noted that social media is "a cancer on our society," accelerating narrative distortion akin to historical propaganda, but at light speed.

It's hard to see at the moment how to break through the dichotomy of either 1) living with political violence or 2) living with much more rigorously policed speech. Kirk was for neither--he was for a Republic comprised of adults, people who could disagree verbosely. Just as the United States was founded on the ideal of adults working together to create and maintain a robust civic society, so the internet was founded on the idea of communication, collaboration, and mutual exchange of ideas. If we don't learn to talk to each other, the disintegration of the latter will lead to the disintegration of the former, and sooner rather than later.