The far-left New Republic, in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, declared that Democrats’ responses condemning the killing were “too tasteful for the moment,” warned that “empathy helps prop up Republicans and Trumpists as legitimate and normal political actors,” and urged Democrats to adopt a “callous, perhaps, but short of cruel” tone — even suggesting they say, “I’m sorry his family is suffering. I wish his message would die with him.”
In an article titled “Charlie Kirk and the Empathy Trap” — with the subhead, “Democrats will never be as cruel as Republicans after a political assassination. That’s to their credit. But it may not be to their advantage” — the magazine derided conservative outrage and mocked reports of leftists celebrating Kirk’s murder, declaring: “You can go online and nut-pick the odd leftist making light of Charlie Kirk’s death.”
It then dismissed Democratic leaders’ official statements — Kamala Harris saying, “Political violence has no place in America,” Hakeem Jeffries declaring it is “completely incompatible with American values,” and Gabby Giffords, herself a survivor of gun violence, warning that “We must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence.”
The author argued that such remarks only showed weakness, declaring that “these denunciations of political violence are too tasteful for the moment,” and adding, “piously expressing respect for Kirk’s work and incanting the importance of ‘debate’ are capitulations to Republicans’ invoking standards to which the right no longer pretends to adhere.”
The piece went further: “Actually, it’s worse: There are no Republicans asking or demanding that their Democratic counterparts play the part of sympathetic colleague.” Democrats, it claimed, “reflexively” react that way, and “it still surprises them when the notoriously remorseless refuse to reciprocate.”
The New Republic pressed its case by praising Republican “shamelessness,” seizing on an isolated episode from three months ago when Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted mocking memes on X about the assassination of Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman — posts he later removed. From that, the author insisted, “using the awesome power of U.S. government to compound people’s grief is exactly how Republicans measure success.”
The demand followed: “Democrats must adopt some version of that metric for themselves. They do not need to be cruel, but they can’t shy away from speaking plainly even if they offend. Next to that sort of shamelessness, a willingness to shove Republicans’ faces in the consequences of their actions is maybe still too mild.”
The article described Democrats as defined by compassion:
We are trained in dignity and empathy. It’s where our politics come from. It’s why we care about gay people and trans people and immigrants and the working class. We believe empathy matters, and we act like it matters.
Yet it immediately dismissed that instinct, arguing that “it has gotten us nowhere, even when we ask for empathy around gun violence more objectively — at least quantitatively — horrific than what befell Charlie Kirk in Utah. The deaths of children in the most violent fashion imaginable have done nothing to turn the Republican Party away from their lurid embrace of killing machines.”
The author resurrected Kirk’s words from years ago about the Second Amendment, repurposing them as evidence to condemn him after his death. Years earlier, Kirk had remarked, “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 … That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
The article sneered in response: “Nobody talks like this, either: Charlie Kirk was right. Gun deaths are the inevitable outcome of valuing the Second Amendment over all the others.” And then the line aimed squarely at his family: “I can’t imagine that Kirk’s family finds it ‘a prudent deal.’”
From there, the rhetoric sharpened.
The article asked, “What is the upside to empathy these days, politically speaking? What are liberals or Democrats gaining by reaching a hand across the aisle to join in grief? The warm, fuzzy feeling of having done the right thing will hopefully be enough, because that’s all there is.”
It then spelled out the approach: “The tone I’m envisioning is callous, perhaps, but short of cruel,” even proposing lines such as, “‘I’m sorry his family is suffering. I wish his message would die with him.’ … ‘No one deserves to die an untimely death, even Charlie Kirk, a supporter of policies that have killed people far more innocent than him.’”
The piece warned Democrats to stop framing political violence as an aberration. “Stay away from the invocation that political violence is an aberration. Instead, point out that Trump, cheerled by Kirk, has normalized it.” One example suggested is: “This is a horrible crime. Maybe Donald Trump should consider sending the National Guard to Utah.”
The piece highlights how Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was praised for refusing to soften her rhetoric. Asked if Democrats would dial it back, she snapped: “Oh, please. Why don’t you start with the president of the United States? And every ugly meme he’s posted and every ugly word.”
To justify this hard line, the author pointed to Kirk’s past rejection of compassion.
The essay concluded by contrasting the two parties’ reactions to violence, with the author declaring that “when someone tried to assassinate Donald Trump, Democratic leaders fell over themselves to release the appropriate statements.”
Republicans, meanwhile, “refused to hold hands and instead pointed their fingers at Democrats, despite the evidence that the shooter’s ideology was, at best, confused.” The piece added that they “hailed Trump as a hero and sold T-shirts with images of the incident” and “reframed the 2024 election as a vigilante operation.” The warning was blunt: “I fear we are about to see the same playbook run again.”
The New Republic left no doubt about what it was advocating: “The last real surge leftward in American politics came after George Floyd’s murder … The lesson shouldn’t be ‘Don’t squeeze a tragedy for political capital.’ The lesson should be, look at what can happen if you do.”
The matter comes as many on the left have openly celebrated the political violence. In the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s shocking assassination, leftists flooded social media to mock, deride, and even cheer his death. A new website, Charlie’s Murderers, has since launched with the stated goal of exposing those who targeted and vilified Kirk in his final moments.
Joshua Klein is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jklein@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.
