By far the best take of the dozens I've read on the Kirk killing and its significance. Soberest, most incisive, and intellectually honest. Now a paid subscriber.
One of the things I find most objectionable about the right’s response to the reaction is characterizing “failure to feel bad” as “celebrating”.
Lots of bad things happen. Most of them you don’t hear about, let alone have a visceral reaction to. I don’t appreciate the demand to go out of my way to grieve an extremely objectionable podcaster who is friends with the evil president. I 100% promise I had nothing to do with the deed, but that’s all you’re getting from me.
I think it’s possible to feel a fleeting sense of giddy schadenfreude while also opposing the murder (and indeed violence more generally) on pragmatic and tactical grounds, as I do, or even on moral grounds.
Does that fleeting sense of schadenfreude before the dread sets in count as “celebration?” Insofar as it manifests as off-the-cuff social media posts, I’m sure it can seem that way, but what those posts don’t show is that more pervasive and lasting feeling of dread and foreboding; a feeling that almost certainly gnawed, however imperceptibly at first, at each of those shitposters even as they hit “send.”
If you hated Kirk for his political goal, then you will hate the realization of those goals far, far worse. His assassination accomplished one and only one thing: the speeding up of that realization. For many of us, I think that giddy schadenfreude was much like the shot of whiskey one downs before engaging in an unpleasant and dangerous task.
Ya imo jokin' around is failing-to-feel-bad or mocking, not in-and-of-itself "celebration". People make tasteless jokes about public figures on the internet, which the garment-renders would recognize in other contexts.
In Kirk's case, I've seen way, way more mocking than bona fide celebration, and the celebration/mocking ratio was much higher for Jordan Nealy (among the right) or Luigi M (among the Gritty avis). The modal response is verbatim quotes from Charlie, the semantic content of which is "who cares, that dude sucked".
Thoughtful as always. Thanks John. This is the type of sober and insightful commentary that so many of those now praising Kirk ridiculously pretend he was all about. Of course we should always support his and others of that ilk to speak freely. But as you say, his actual speech was filled with hate, bigotry, and disinformation. Hoping we can at least get through the next few years without a significant escalation of politicized violence and even greater tyranny is indeed probably the most ambitious we can be at this point.
I am very excited to witness the overlapping OG's from the History Departments of Tulane University and the Saint Ann's School. Tip of the hat, gentlemen!
Hofstadter’s major thesis—also advanced Hannah Arendt, “Is America by nature a violent society”—states a paradox. Amid our penchant for spilling blood, what explains the resilience of our political system? His answer is that our violence has not generally been directed toward the state as such. American political violence has not taken the form of revolutionary violence. That was why the January 6 attack was so novel. It is also why “Neither side has a monopoly on political violence” is a nostrum that allows us to overlook the no less obvious but more consequential fact that the state does have a monopoly on political violence, at least at scale. At least some of what galls the state about unauthorized political violence from below is stolen prerogative. Only the president is permitted to pull the trigger and to assassinate adversaries.
Sure, especially if the southern forces had proceeded to storm Washington DC. My point is that today, if you are a young person such as the alleged culprit in this case, and you observe the extraordinary level of state terrorism carried out by dear leaders in both parties without any consequence, without any sense that it is wrong or immoral, much less illegal—but rather expedient and necessary—I should think one's inhibitions might become a mite lowered.
I agree that this is a wonderful “take” on the situation and its significance. Thank you, John, for your insightfulness and intellectual rigor, as always. I went to high school and college in the 1960s and know all to well to much of what you reference. I have been an independent since I could vote, and in hindsight, I think my views have their roots in what I saw back then of both the Democratic and Republican Parties we are living with now. Keep up the good work. While I don’t always agree with you, I respect the rigor, intelligence and balance with which you approach your craft.
that simple game i can only watch and speculate on, "Who goes Nazi?," just got a great deal more complex, analyzing various components of this new miasma in the journalism bidness, measuring the levels of complicity, the "scurrying for cover," and even the mere praise of Kirk's "market share" of the attention economy (cf, Klein).
Very incisive remarks. I'm heartened by the voices willing to calmly and accurately describe for the record what Kirk's record and messages really were. It shows that there are people––hopefully a lot of us––who have not succumbed to either the intimidation by the right or the deluded idea that demonstrations of civility will move the hardcore right. They won't.
But I do feel this murder may point to something for which there is very little precedent in US history. This shooter may have had most of his hours and most of his brain and heart immersed in a medium of communication and sociality that hasn't existed before. Reporters can't even figure out how to begin to translate his meme-driven inscriptions because they are not real language. They seem more like an encrypted code for an underground society that doesn't have political goals or ideologies at all, beyond the solidarity created by performing or miming violence for each other. There have been a lot of violent undergrounds in the US, but none quite like this looks to be.
As the reactionaries sanctimoniously vomited out screeds about words leading to violence, there was still no reflection about that in relation to Jan 6, 2021. It is important to not forget that they are collectively full of shit.
Great piece John, although I’d qualify your claim about guns in other western countries. In the UK you can only get rifles or shotguns if you need it for farming or organised sport, and its heavily licensed and policed. Handguns were banned after the Dunblane massacre in the 90s. In reality the only people who might be able to get a gun are well-connected, hardcore criminal types. To give an indication of how seriously that’s taken, police will scramble the tactical team if they get wind of someone carrying an illegal gun in public.
By far the best take of the dozens I've read on the Kirk killing and its significance. Soberest, most incisive, and intellectually honest. Now a paid subscriber.
One of the things I find most objectionable about the right’s response to the reaction is characterizing “failure to feel bad” as “celebrating”.
Lots of bad things happen. Most of them you don’t hear about, let alone have a visceral reaction to. I don’t appreciate the demand to go out of my way to grieve an extremely objectionable podcaster who is friends with the evil president. I 100% promise I had nothing to do with the deed, but that’s all you’re getting from me.
I think it’s possible to feel a fleeting sense of giddy schadenfreude while also opposing the murder (and indeed violence more generally) on pragmatic and tactical grounds, as I do, or even on moral grounds.
Does that fleeting sense of schadenfreude before the dread sets in count as “celebration?” Insofar as it manifests as off-the-cuff social media posts, I’m sure it can seem that way, but what those posts don’t show is that more pervasive and lasting feeling of dread and foreboding; a feeling that almost certainly gnawed, however imperceptibly at first, at each of those shitposters even as they hit “send.”
If you hated Kirk for his political goal, then you will hate the realization of those goals far, far worse. His assassination accomplished one and only one thing: the speeding up of that realization. For many of us, I think that giddy schadenfreude was much like the shot of whiskey one downs before engaging in an unpleasant and dangerous task.
Ya imo jokin' around is failing-to-feel-bad or mocking, not in-and-of-itself "celebration". People make tasteless jokes about public figures on the internet, which the garment-renders would recognize in other contexts.
In Kirk's case, I've seen way, way more mocking than bona fide celebration, and the celebration/mocking ratio was much higher for Jordan Nealy (among the right) or Luigi M (among the Gritty avis). The modal response is verbatim quotes from Charlie, the semantic content of which is "who cares, that dude sucked".
You are one of the only people I can still bear to read. Thank you.
There is a clarity with your writing here that I really appreciate. Thank you.
Thoughtful as always. Thanks John. This is the type of sober and insightful commentary that so many of those now praising Kirk ridiculously pretend he was all about. Of course we should always support his and others of that ilk to speak freely. But as you say, his actual speech was filled with hate, bigotry, and disinformation. Hoping we can at least get through the next few years without a significant escalation of politicized violence and even greater tyranny is indeed probably the most ambitious we can be at this point.
"The nation seems to slouch onward into its uncertain future like some huge inarticulate beast,.."
Published two years after Didion's Slouching Towards Bethlehem. That was a slouchy era.
Let’s not forget Yeats seeing that apocalyptic “beast" way back when.
I am very excited to witness the overlapping OG's from the History Departments of Tulane University and the Saint Ann's School. Tip of the hat, gentlemen!
Or Louisiana in the time of David Duke slouching toward Baton Rouge.
You've said what needed to be said and said it well.
Hofstadter’s major thesis—also advanced Hannah Arendt, “Is America by nature a violent society”—states a paradox. Amid our penchant for spilling blood, what explains the resilience of our political system? His answer is that our violence has not generally been directed toward the state as such. American political violence has not taken the form of revolutionary violence. That was why the January 6 attack was so novel. It is also why “Neither side has a monopoly on political violence” is a nostrum that allows us to overlook the no less obvious but more consequential fact that the state does have a monopoly on political violence, at least at scale. At least some of what galls the state about unauthorized political violence from below is stolen prerogative. Only the president is permitted to pull the trigger and to assassinate adversaries.
Was firing on fort sumter revolutionary violence?
Sure, especially if the southern forces had proceeded to storm Washington DC. My point is that today, if you are a young person such as the alleged culprit in this case, and you observe the extraordinary level of state terrorism carried out by dear leaders in both parties without any consequence, without any sense that it is wrong or immoral, much less illegal—but rather expedient and necessary—I should think one's inhibitions might become a mite lowered.
"if the southern forces had proceeded to storm Washington DC.” IF? Seems to me they tried almost immediately but failed to follow up on 1st Bull Run.
They didn't because they couldn't. Washington DC in that era was the epitome of a hard target.
Early was late!
What a wonderful piece — I've been #GanzPilled, and just upgraded to a paid subscription.
I agree that this is a wonderful “take” on the situation and its significance. Thank you, John, for your insightfulness and intellectual rigor, as always. I went to high school and college in the 1960s and know all to well to much of what you reference. I have been an independent since I could vote, and in hindsight, I think my views have their roots in what I saw back then of both the Democratic and Republican Parties we are living with now. Keep up the good work. While I don’t always agree with you, I respect the rigor, intelligence and balance with which you approach your craft.
that simple game i can only watch and speculate on, "Who goes Nazi?," just got a great deal more complex, analyzing various components of this new miasma in the journalism bidness, measuring the levels of complicity, the "scurrying for cover," and even the mere praise of Kirk's "market share" of the attention economy (cf, Klein).
Very incisive remarks. I'm heartened by the voices willing to calmly and accurately describe for the record what Kirk's record and messages really were. It shows that there are people––hopefully a lot of us––who have not succumbed to either the intimidation by the right or the deluded idea that demonstrations of civility will move the hardcore right. They won't.
But I do feel this murder may point to something for which there is very little precedent in US history. This shooter may have had most of his hours and most of his brain and heart immersed in a medium of communication and sociality that hasn't existed before. Reporters can't even figure out how to begin to translate his meme-driven inscriptions because they are not real language. They seem more like an encrypted code for an underground society that doesn't have political goals or ideologies at all, beyond the solidarity created by performing or miming violence for each other. There have been a lot of violent undergrounds in the US, but none quite like this looks to be.
As the reactionaries sanctimoniously vomited out screeds about words leading to violence, there was still no reflection about that in relation to Jan 6, 2021. It is important to not forget that they are collectively full of shit.
Great piece John, although I’d qualify your claim about guns in other western countries. In the UK you can only get rifles or shotguns if you need it for farming or organised sport, and its heavily licensed and policed. Handguns were banned after the Dunblane massacre in the 90s. In reality the only people who might be able to get a gun are well-connected, hardcore criminal types. To give an indication of how seriously that’s taken, police will scramble the tactical team if they get wind of someone carrying an illegal gun in public.
If only more pundits were like you and Jamelle, and only more Republicans like Spencer Cox, we'd be in a much better place.
Spot-on in a precise and measured way. So much so, I will 100% be quoting some of it in the near future.