The Left’s progressive suppression of dissent took its final, fatal step with Charlie Kirk’s murder. For decades, America’s Left have adopted tactics to avoid discourse with its opponents. They did, because they knew their ideas lose in open debate. As their policies have become increasingly extreme, their need to stifle debate over them has become increasingly urgent and their means of suppression increasingly severe.
Charlie Kirk was murdered into martyrdom. He died doing what he loved: open discourse with young people about conservative values. He was struck down by cowardly assassination, precisely because he was so effective in open discourse.
Charlie Kirk’s murder was the latest link in a chain of leftist suppression that stretches back for decades.
When the Left were sheltered under the expansive umbrella of FDR’s New Deal coalition, they could ignore the powerlessness of conservatives. In politics’ currency of power, conservatives were bankrupt; they had nothing with which to threaten the Left.
When the umbrella of FDR’s coalition began closing and conservatives began regaining traction in America, the Left dismissed conservatives with ridicule. They scoffed, “How could anyone educated and sophisticated take conservatives seriously?” To the Left, conservatives were the definition of uncool: Conservatives simply did not exist in the circles that mattered. The Left’s message was unmistakable.
In our own era, once conservatives had reestablished themselves, regularly holding Congress and the White House, the Left moved to cancel those who publicly espoused conservative values. The Cancel Culture of America’s Left actively worked to deny conservatives platforms by having conservatives excluded from them. To cross the Left meant potentially becoming a nonperson in public discourse—you risked not merely being labeled “uncool,” you could cease having a public presence at all.
When canceling was insufficient to stem the conservative tide, the Left’s method of suppression became more proactive: Conservatives were “doxed.” Their personal information was made public. The Left’s threat was made clearer still: We know where you live and we can come, or send others, if we choose to.
When doxing was not explicit enough of a threat, swatting came into use. More intrusive and sinister, the Left moved their attacks to conservatives’ homes—via false alarms to official law enforcement. More than mere warning, there was a real intrusion and the real potential something untoward could occur during the response to a false emergency.
And there were of course direct confrontations. Officials in Trump’s first administration were accosted, denied service in some places, forced out of others. And Democrat representatives, such as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) encouraged such confrontations.
There were physical attacks on conservatives too. Antifa existed solely for the purpose and looked forward to the opportunity. There was overturning of conservative booths and displays; there was routine “deplatforming;” there were public assaults of conservatives; vandalism of Tesla vehicles was widespread and there were attacks on Tesla dealerships.
Then the attacks became more violent still, as so-called “progressives” increasingly supported political violence.
United Health’s CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down in a premeditated attack. Elected Democrats tried to rationalize the murder; leftist commentators elevated the killer to Marxist folk hero.
The Left’s personal demonization reached to the presidential level. Donald Trump was called a “fascist” and a “threat to democracy”—not by fringe leftists, but by his campaign opponents. Not one, but two assassination attempts targeted Donald Trump. Leftists tried to dispute that Trump had even been shot, or asserted he staged it; others said he had brought the attempts on himself.
Where leftist assassins failed with Trump, one succeeded with Kirk.
The Left’s stifling of dissent has gotten more extreme as its ideas have gotten more extreme.
Once their policies were those of tax and spend liberals who sought incremental program-by-program increases. When such programs became regularly achievable, the Left’s goals rose too: They sought a systemic increase in the size of government. As government expanded, the Left sought to extend the government’s mission beyond its historical parameters: It now was sought in areas unimagined before, and the Left relied increasingly on judicial actions, regulations, and mandates to advance these extensions.
Now the Left’s goals are extreme by any historical definition—even within the Left’s own American history. Their goals go well beyond mere allocation of government resources to redistribution of private resources. They advance CRT and DEI ideology to justify and advance such redistribution.
Far removed from the liberals of old, today’s Left are represented by avowed socialist nominees for mayor in New York City and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Extremist policies have ratcheted up extremist suppression of dissent. Everyone can now see through the Left’s veil. None but extremists support the Left’s new policies; as a result, today’s radicalized Left expect opposition. There is a reason why they have always had a place for extreme suppression when the extremist Left have attained the most power: gulags, state-run press, self-criticism, show trials.
Charlie Kirk knew this too. Still, he proceeded. He knew that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” So, he did more than something… he did everything he could.
Kirk will be even more powerful in death. People who never heard of him, or listened to him, will do so now. They will hear his truth…and his challenge: “Prove me wrong.”
The Left could not prove Kirk wrong. They knew that. They could not silence him, because they tried every means they knew to silence him and other conservatives over the years. So, finally, their extremists followed their extremism to the end of its tragic trajectory.