The Charlie Kirk Assassination: A Few Words From Danielle
Dignity, depolarization, and nonviolence
I want to share with our Renovator community a message I shared this morning via Partners in Democracy, an org I founded to drive democracy renovation. Link to original here: https://partnersindemocracy.us/charlie-kirk/.
~
The horrifying murder of Charlie Kirk is a dark tragedy for him, his family, and our nation. We wholeheartedly condemn his assassination and call on all of us to choose non-violence. Our vision for the future of our democracy was not Mr. Kirk’s vision, but we defended his right to articulate his view. The public sphere of a free society should be shaped by civic participants who wield only words and the power drawn from relationships.
The first rule of the public sphere is that we should never hold human dignity hostage—neither our own by descending to violence and deceit, nor that of others through attacks on their being—whether in word or deed. This is especially true at a university, or any educational setting, which should be a place where people learn how to contend with one another through speech.
Too many people in organizing and politics are taught to polarize the conversation in order to force people into a choice. But if polarization is an inevitable tool of politics, then polarization must be temporary and always coupled with depolarization. The Alaska Humanities Foundation has published a helpful guide to depolarization, which we recommend.
Our times need transformation, yes, but what we really need is to reorient ourselves. We need to turn our spirits away from hate—all of us—and toward connection.
The most important message is this: We can all help reduce political violence by committing to using only non-violent methods of dispute resolution. Our shared safety depends on it. The functioning of our institutions of self-government depends on it. This is why, at Partners In Democracy, in our civic education work, we work so hard to teach the democratic norm of civic reciprocity. This is why, as we pursue renovation to our institutions through advocacy, we work to build cross-ideological coalitions. We haven’t yet gotten nearly as far in this work as we would like, but we ask everyone who is ready to move beyond a world riven by political violence to join us.
Inch by inch, and every day, we are working to heal our civic culture.




Danielle, I agree with your sentiments and insights. Even so, it's important to bear in mind that Charlie Kirk got exactly what he said America deserved. There's good reason not to see Kirk's killing as any more horrifying than Kirk saw other deaths due to gun violence. Kirk's own words are most relevant regarding how to see Kirk's killing:
"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
Kirk (speaking for America) said "it's worth it," it "is a prudent deal. It is rational" to accept "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our" other "rights." Kirk literally said we "have the second amendment" so that our rights regarding arms can (and should) be exercised "to protect our" other "rights." Kirk expressly emphasized that he saw "the second amendment" serving "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year."
Kirk's contention that the "the second amendment" enables us "to protect our" other "rights" by some people using firearms to inflict "some gun deaths every single year" should be contrasted with the words of James Madison in Virginia's Report of 1800 (reiterated by a unanimous SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964) regarding the First Amendment:
the significance of “the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon” is that those particular powers and rights were “deemed” to be “the only effectual guardian of every” American “right.”