An Op-Ed by Sen. Mitch McConnell
(Washington, D.C.) – Charlie Kirk was a husband, a father of young children and a man of faith. His death yesterday is gut-wrenching on those grounds, above all else. I’m keeping Charlie’s family in my prayers as they try to make sense of the senseless, as are so many Kentuckians who were drawn to his work in the public eye.
Of course, Charlie’s death will be remembered not just as a personal tragedy but an assassination — an escalation of the political violence that increasingly threatens the fabric of our society. If you’re worried and angry about that trend, you’re absolutely right to be.
In Congress, it is tempting to declare a particularly tense or emotionally charged debate as unprecedented or corrosive. As something of an elder statesman, I often find myself reminding colleagues that we’ve been through worse than today’s recurring gridlock.
In fact, our Constitution anticipated and encouraged lively debate. Our system of government was built for it. Passionate disagreement is a sign of the health of our democracy. And guardrails exist to protect it.
Throughout my career in the Senate, I’ve tried to reaffirm these guardrails:
I’ve been a staunch opponent of restrictions on free speech. I’ve fought repeatedly to preserve the right to political speech in elections (even for deep-pocketed Democratic opponents) and in the public square (even for flag-burners).
In the Senate, I’ve fought just as hard to protect the rights of the minority party to unlimited debate (even when my side wasn’t the one that stood to gain).
Guardrails matter. They keep the American experiment rolling. But if passionate disagreement is a sign of health, political violence like yesterday’s sickening display is a sign of decay. To excuse or encourage it is to place a cynical bet against America.
Whatever an assassin’s deluded justification, there is nothing less American than to override the guardrails of public discourse.
Wednesday’s assassination comes with an especially bitter irony. Charlie Kirk’s success as an activist and communicator came from his appetite for passionate disagreement. His willingness to peacefully debate all comers was an example of exactly what the founders had in mind.
But the founders also knew that combatting the sort of cowardice behind political assassination was too big a job for government, alone. They knew that the responsibility to reject political violence would rest on the shoulders of every American.
Every one of us must resist the temptation to treat those with different politics as enemies. We must treat the clash of ideas in the public square as a celebration of our democracy, not a pretext for war. If you’re ever tempted to believe in recourse to violence among neighbors, patriots and fellow citizens, think again. Think of Charlie. And keep his family in your prayers.