I don’t take you for a gullible person, but in this essay, you really seem to have swallowed the right’s bullshit about what Kirk stood for. He was not a true debater. His “debates” were always set-ups where he would “win” the argument, and never really a two-way discussion of ideas. And he was definitely not about peace and love. His message was always about hating those he defined as the outsiders. All the chest beating on the right since his death has just been to sanitize him as this “civilized persuader” who just wanted to debate ideas. A true debate involves listening as well, and not degrading your opponent with racist, misogynistic, xenophobic slurs.
You are absolutely correct not to take me for a gullible person. And people who analyze events differently from you may not be gullible. They may just look at the world differently from you. And that’s OK.
If everyone looked at the world just like me, I would consider the world a very boring place. My issue is not that. It is that I can agree that Charlie Kirk took a different perspective than some others on the right, but in this essay, I believe you mischaracterize the ways in which he differed. A veneer of politeness is false when you are only pretending to listen. His own many words included angry, degrading rants about many groups of people, as groups. I don’t see evidence that his love extended beyond his own in-group. I agree with you that there are distinctions and cracks between groups on the right, just not the way you described it with respect to Kirk.
I will add this is the first time I have ever felt moved to comment on something you’ve written in disagreement. I’ve watched interviews you’ve conducted and always eagerly read what you write because I very much respect you. So I was simply taken aback by this one.
We have to stop using the term "conservative" to describe right wing nut jobs like Kirk. They are radicals. 'Conservative' gives them a mainstream legitimacy they don't deserve.
Strangely enough, only love will bring peace and unity, I am not even a Christian but a Buddhist and even though I find day's events so nearly every time, horrifying, nothing like starting to feel compassion towards anyone animated by hate will bring me some peace.
How to configure this along resisting activity towards cruelty ? Here is the catalyst.
Supporting someone like you Anand, and Marc Elias' work feels essential, till perhaps I may meet violence on my way and then, resist peacefully...
Uhummm… I saw his “debate” at Cambridge University in England…let’s be clear he is not a debater.
One cannot legislate or “persuade” love, decency and kindness. The individual must get there on their own need to be self aware, introspective and to find the light that we all carry. There’s no greater work than the inner personal and emotional development of a human being. It’s essential… and it’s a deeply private journey. The work can only be done by you and you alone. What we are up against are too many broken/dark souls who need to find the light they carry. Have to stop the hating, the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia etc. etc. If people weren’t so afraid/ambivalent of voting for an incredibly qualified black woman as President, we wouldn’t be in this current mess.
You have so much to say here. I'll take just one aspect to consider: that, like Carl Jung and Isabel Wilkerson (who wrote Caste in 2020), I have come to believe that we are all capable of the worst of things, and that Trump is, in part, a projection of our own aggression.
You said a couple of weeks ago that people are more afraid of looking stupid than of fascism. That was brilliant as it was scary. Democrats are too often scared of their aggression, which hides in their closets or gets projected onto other people.
Our job is to get in touch with various parts of ourselves as part of our humanity, so we are not paralyzed. Not desperately afraid of insisting that we finally represent the rights of workers, taxes for the rich, etc.
I am older. And I am part of the fear factor, from which I am finally beginning too emerge as more authentic.
Charlie Kirk has to represent so much for so many because he has undoubtedly triggered an upheaval that was already there. It deserves more thought than I have given it so far.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have to get smarter in our strategies, and this can only happen if we don't have to bury our shadows and see aggression only outside of us.
Thanks for this. It doesn't have to be perfect. You help us to delve into our own opinions and our own demons, which is crucial at the moment.
Anand, good break-down of the three rifts in the Maga camp.
I was sorry to read; however, this line: Do you love your enemies, which is to say, "do you believe that even your farthest-out foes are capable of changing, of seeing your light." To change minds is a flawed goal. We (the left) don't need Magas to change their minds or see the light. They just need to be better than we were (1960-2000s), and to realize that cherry-picking out the deplorables among our fellow citizens and creating and maintaining an exclusionary public sphere will not end in the form that they intended. It's going to be rather like this quote from Apollodorus in Schneer's The Balfour Declaration: In his indignation Cadmus killed the dragon and by the advice of Athena sowed its teeth. When they were sown there rose from the ground armed men...."
I believe all people are capable of change. However, as someone who works in adult learning, development and coaching, I know change doesn’t happen without certain conditions, dispositions ( though malleable, I believe), and motivations. And transformation happens slowly, over time. I’m not sure how much of this base feels motivated to choose something different. I’m not sure how much of this base reflects on their beliefs and how they impact the world around them. I’m not sure how much of this base is comfortable with the type of critical thinking it takes to check facts and make plausible inferences. I’m not sure how much of this base is willing to accept that perhaps they were wrong. And frankly I’m not sure how strong people’s pattern recognition skills are. They just don’t want to believe the USA could ever fall. We have a large swath of the population bathed in Fox-induced fear and wanting an authoritarian to make them feel powerful, safe, and better than their neighbors. Can they be persuaded? I think some can be persuaded on the basis of morality. Even if they don’t have the strongest thinking skills, I do not believe most people want to see their community members suffer of face harm. I just don’t. I don’t see them being persuaded on the hypocrisy of the free speech issue. If we use fear ( sadly) I think you can help them feel like their wealth and well being are being stolen from them to enrich the few. That might be the one argument to break the base to unite with us. The rest of these schisms will only shed a few I’m afraid.
Anand, I think very highly of you, but on this issue, I don't think you are willing to take a stand on when the time has come to stop trying to persuade someone and simply stop them from doing what they're doing. Should we not have used force to stop the Nazis? Should we not have used force to put an end to slavery? Should we not have used force to stop the attack on the capitol on January 6, 2021? I agree with everything you say up until a point, but then it falls apart. Each of us has to decide when that point is. Almost none of these people who are mourning for Charlie Kirk expressed anywhere near the same sentiment for Congresswoman Melissa Hortman, her husband, and their family dog. I have to agree with Ben Meiselas that, from everything I hear, that so-called funeral yesterday was more a hate rally than anything. Many of those people are literally calling for me and my husband and friends as liberals to be eradicated, as in terminated, as in wiped out. Sure, if I have the chance to try to persuade them otherwise, I might do so, but if they take active steps to put those words into action, I will use whatever force necessary to stop them and perhaps consider more persuasion after I've got them properly restrained from acting on their beliefs. As I have repeatedly said, I abhor violence of any kind and do not advocate being the instigator of it, but I do believe in defending oneself and one's ideals when they are under imminent threat.
Thought-provoking essay, as always. I agree that the schisms within the MAGA movement are becoming clearer.
I was most startled at Erika Kirk’s memorial service comments about love and forgiveness—which were in stark contrast to the MAGA rants and were a subtle but significant departure from her husband’s views and some of her own previous statements. If she has the strength and will to follow through on her messages of love and acceptance, she could play a pivotal role in healing wounded and misdirected Evangelicals and drawing them into closer alignment with the true message of the Beatitudes. I’d be interested to know what motivated her to do the fascinating interview with the NYT and what she meant by saying she is “more conservative” than her husband. Yes, I strongly disagree with her statements about “wives submitting to their husbands.” But if her beliefs in regressive Pauline doctrines about marriage are paired with more accurate, stringent, conservative readings of the grace, love, compassion, and forgiveness in the Gospels, she could have a powerful voice in drawing Evangelicals away from Trump’s influence.
To me, the GOP schism is not so much within the party as it is among the base. Even before Kirk and Kimmel, Joe Rogan and the Rogan wannabes were showing signs of discontent on ICE and Epstein. The economic situation isn't helping them with working-class voters. With the Democrats, the schisms are evident in both party and base. We are just now having our Tea Party moment and it may be too late. I am increasingly pessimistic on the 2026 elections especially after last night's hate fest.
I think it's very difficult to love one's enemies. You have to be secure in yourself and mature enough not to be threatened by other opinions and beliefs. I don't see a lot of that anywhere in this country or the world. I don't even see people respecting others' right to their opinions. We have a lot of work to do as a species.
I would dearly love to believe the wife of Charlie Kirk. I REALLY WOULD. Is it possible for a marriage to endure such separate beliefs in Christianity? Christian Nationalism, after all is not a religion but a political movement. I myself who takes my Christian faith so seriously would find it very difficult to accept his statements as true to Christ.
What a good essay to read. I’m not sure if I see the schisms and I will have to think about it. One line brought forth a memory of a book: “that strives to be a carnival open to all (no matter how dehumanizing the underlying policies may be to many groups);”. I thought of a flawed but interesting book called “Geek Love” which was about cults and how they grow and persuade. In Geek Live, the cult leader is a person named Artie who was a thalidomide-type baby who grew up in a Carney family which specialized in Freak Shows and Arturo (Arty) learned well the family grift. The book was published in 1989. Arturo’s cult looks to me like a miniature of the Trump Administration and its cult. For me it points out the absurdities of cults.
There are many good examples of cults of persuasion in literature, but Geek Love is the one that sticks with me probably because the absurdities of it are so extreme. Persuasion or elimination: can persuasion avoid becoming elimination if you are not persuaded?
Wierd to posit Erika Kirk as the side who wants to forgive and persuade when just a few days ago she was in Kirk's recording studio talking about battle cries and whatnot. Frankly, I do not believe any of the right-wing power figures believe in persuasion and love thy enemy.
Also, imo the most notable schism on the right is shown not by who was there, but who wasn't - Candace Owens. What Kirk's shooting exposed is the divide over Israel. There is a loud group, led by Candace Owens, who think Kirk's death was a hit ordered by Israel.
It is my understanding that there is another schism on the right represented by Kirk who was a supporter of Israel and the alleged shooter who was not. It is apparently important to some that one must decide who one hates more, Jews or Muslims.
In 2016 I was saved from descending into hate by a sermon on Bayard Rustin, the organizer of the I Have a Dream March. Rustin said that the response to the virulent racist Mississippi Senator Eastland should be love, and the way we love him is to take away his power.
Love conquers hate and fear. Take away Trump's power. Solidarity. Focus.
Trump, Musk, Mace, Noem & so many on the right are always the victims. BTW, Trump answered Ms. Kirk's call for forgiveness with incitement to hatred of critics. Trump's with Stephen Miller not Erika Kirk as a crusader for hate & war against critics that he views as less than human.
But aren't we in the "Golden Age" of Trump approved speech, gaslighting, propaganda, extortion & massive corruption? So little time, so much corruption... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXNJ3V9lzg
Get up stand up, resist the fraudster authoritarians & #Vote Blue!
I don’t take you for a gullible person, but in this essay, you really seem to have swallowed the right’s bullshit about what Kirk stood for. He was not a true debater. His “debates” were always set-ups where he would “win” the argument, and never really a two-way discussion of ideas. And he was definitely not about peace and love. His message was always about hating those he defined as the outsiders. All the chest beating on the right since his death has just been to sanitize him as this “civilized persuader” who just wanted to debate ideas. A true debate involves listening as well, and not degrading your opponent with racist, misogynistic, xenophobic slurs.
You are absolutely correct not to take me for a gullible person. And people who analyze events differently from you may not be gullible. They may just look at the world differently from you. And that’s OK.
If everyone looked at the world just like me, I would consider the world a very boring place. My issue is not that. It is that I can agree that Charlie Kirk took a different perspective than some others on the right, but in this essay, I believe you mischaracterize the ways in which he differed. A veneer of politeness is false when you are only pretending to listen. His own many words included angry, degrading rants about many groups of people, as groups. I don’t see evidence that his love extended beyond his own in-group. I agree with you that there are distinctions and cracks between groups on the right, just not the way you described it with respect to Kirk.
I will add this is the first time I have ever felt moved to comment on something you’ve written in disagreement. I’ve watched interviews you’ve conducted and always eagerly read what you write because I very much respect you. So I was simply taken aback by this one.
We have to stop using the term "conservative" to describe right wing nut jobs like Kirk. They are radicals. 'Conservative' gives them a mainstream legitimacy they don't deserve.
Strangely enough, only love will bring peace and unity, I am not even a Christian but a Buddhist and even though I find day's events so nearly every time, horrifying, nothing like starting to feel compassion towards anyone animated by hate will bring me some peace.
How to configure this along resisting activity towards cruelty ? Here is the catalyst.
Supporting someone like you Anand, and Marc Elias' work feels essential, till perhaps I may meet violence on my way and then, resist peacefully...
Uhummm… I saw his “debate” at Cambridge University in England…let’s be clear he is not a debater.
One cannot legislate or “persuade” love, decency and kindness. The individual must get there on their own need to be self aware, introspective and to find the light that we all carry. There’s no greater work than the inner personal and emotional development of a human being. It’s essential… and it’s a deeply private journey. The work can only be done by you and you alone. What we are up against are too many broken/dark souls who need to find the light they carry. Have to stop the hating, the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia etc. etc. If people weren’t so afraid/ambivalent of voting for an incredibly qualified black woman as President, we wouldn’t be in this current mess.
You have so much to say here. I'll take just one aspect to consider: that, like Carl Jung and Isabel Wilkerson (who wrote Caste in 2020), I have come to believe that we are all capable of the worst of things, and that Trump is, in part, a projection of our own aggression.
You said a couple of weeks ago that people are more afraid of looking stupid than of fascism. That was brilliant as it was scary. Democrats are too often scared of their aggression, which hides in their closets or gets projected onto other people.
Our job is to get in touch with various parts of ourselves as part of our humanity, so we are not paralyzed. Not desperately afraid of insisting that we finally represent the rights of workers, taxes for the rich, etc.
I am older. And I am part of the fear factor, from which I am finally beginning too emerge as more authentic.
Charlie Kirk has to represent so much for so many because he has undoubtedly triggered an upheaval that was already there. It deserves more thought than I have given it so far.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have to get smarter in our strategies, and this can only happen if we don't have to bury our shadows and see aggression only outside of us.
Thanks for this. It doesn't have to be perfect. You help us to delve into our own opinions and our own demons, which is crucial at the moment.
Anand, good break-down of the three rifts in the Maga camp.
I was sorry to read; however, this line: Do you love your enemies, which is to say, "do you believe that even your farthest-out foes are capable of changing, of seeing your light." To change minds is a flawed goal. We (the left) don't need Magas to change their minds or see the light. They just need to be better than we were (1960-2000s), and to realize that cherry-picking out the deplorables among our fellow citizens and creating and maintaining an exclusionary public sphere will not end in the form that they intended. It's going to be rather like this quote from Apollodorus in Schneer's The Balfour Declaration: In his indignation Cadmus killed the dragon and by the advice of Athena sowed its teeth. When they were sown there rose from the ground armed men...."
I believe all people are capable of change. However, as someone who works in adult learning, development and coaching, I know change doesn’t happen without certain conditions, dispositions ( though malleable, I believe), and motivations. And transformation happens slowly, over time. I’m not sure how much of this base feels motivated to choose something different. I’m not sure how much of this base reflects on their beliefs and how they impact the world around them. I’m not sure how much of this base is comfortable with the type of critical thinking it takes to check facts and make plausible inferences. I’m not sure how much of this base is willing to accept that perhaps they were wrong. And frankly I’m not sure how strong people’s pattern recognition skills are. They just don’t want to believe the USA could ever fall. We have a large swath of the population bathed in Fox-induced fear and wanting an authoritarian to make them feel powerful, safe, and better than their neighbors. Can they be persuaded? I think some can be persuaded on the basis of morality. Even if they don’t have the strongest thinking skills, I do not believe most people want to see their community members suffer of face harm. I just don’t. I don’t see them being persuaded on the hypocrisy of the free speech issue. If we use fear ( sadly) I think you can help them feel like their wealth and well being are being stolen from them to enrich the few. That might be the one argument to break the base to unite with us. The rest of these schisms will only shed a few I’m afraid.
Anand, I think very highly of you, but on this issue, I don't think you are willing to take a stand on when the time has come to stop trying to persuade someone and simply stop them from doing what they're doing. Should we not have used force to stop the Nazis? Should we not have used force to put an end to slavery? Should we not have used force to stop the attack on the capitol on January 6, 2021? I agree with everything you say up until a point, but then it falls apart. Each of us has to decide when that point is. Almost none of these people who are mourning for Charlie Kirk expressed anywhere near the same sentiment for Congresswoman Melissa Hortman, her husband, and their family dog. I have to agree with Ben Meiselas that, from everything I hear, that so-called funeral yesterday was more a hate rally than anything. Many of those people are literally calling for me and my husband and friends as liberals to be eradicated, as in terminated, as in wiped out. Sure, if I have the chance to try to persuade them otherwise, I might do so, but if they take active steps to put those words into action, I will use whatever force necessary to stop them and perhaps consider more persuasion after I've got them properly restrained from acting on their beliefs. As I have repeatedly said, I abhor violence of any kind and do not advocate being the instigator of it, but I do believe in defending oneself and one's ideals when they are under imminent threat.
Thought-provoking essay, as always. I agree that the schisms within the MAGA movement are becoming clearer.
I was most startled at Erika Kirk’s memorial service comments about love and forgiveness—which were in stark contrast to the MAGA rants and were a subtle but significant departure from her husband’s views and some of her own previous statements. If she has the strength and will to follow through on her messages of love and acceptance, she could play a pivotal role in healing wounded and misdirected Evangelicals and drawing them into closer alignment with the true message of the Beatitudes. I’d be interested to know what motivated her to do the fascinating interview with the NYT and what she meant by saying she is “more conservative” than her husband. Yes, I strongly disagree with her statements about “wives submitting to their husbands.” But if her beliefs in regressive Pauline doctrines about marriage are paired with more accurate, stringent, conservative readings of the grace, love, compassion, and forgiveness in the Gospels, she could have a powerful voice in drawing Evangelicals away from Trump’s influence.
To me, the GOP schism is not so much within the party as it is among the base. Even before Kirk and Kimmel, Joe Rogan and the Rogan wannabes were showing signs of discontent on ICE and Epstein. The economic situation isn't helping them with working-class voters. With the Democrats, the schisms are evident in both party and base. We are just now having our Tea Party moment and it may be too late. I am increasingly pessimistic on the 2026 elections especially after last night's hate fest.
I think it's very difficult to love one's enemies. You have to be secure in yourself and mature enough not to be threatened by other opinions and beliefs. I don't see a lot of that anywhere in this country or the world. I don't even see people respecting others' right to their opinions. We have a lot of work to do as a species.
I would dearly love to believe the wife of Charlie Kirk. I REALLY WOULD. Is it possible for a marriage to endure such separate beliefs in Christianity? Christian Nationalism, after all is not a religion but a political movement. I myself who takes my Christian faith so seriously would find it very difficult to accept his statements as true to Christ.
What a good essay to read. I’m not sure if I see the schisms and I will have to think about it. One line brought forth a memory of a book: “that strives to be a carnival open to all (no matter how dehumanizing the underlying policies may be to many groups);”. I thought of a flawed but interesting book called “Geek Love” which was about cults and how they grow and persuade. In Geek Live, the cult leader is a person named Artie who was a thalidomide-type baby who grew up in a Carney family which specialized in Freak Shows and Arturo (Arty) learned well the family grift. The book was published in 1989. Arturo’s cult looks to me like a miniature of the Trump Administration and its cult. For me it points out the absurdities of cults.
There are many good examples of cults of persuasion in literature, but Geek Love is the one that sticks with me probably because the absurdities of it are so extreme. Persuasion or elimination: can persuasion avoid becoming elimination if you are not persuaded?
Wierd to posit Erika Kirk as the side who wants to forgive and persuade when just a few days ago she was in Kirk's recording studio talking about battle cries and whatnot. Frankly, I do not believe any of the right-wing power figures believe in persuasion and love thy enemy.
Also, imo the most notable schism on the right is shown not by who was there, but who wasn't - Candace Owens. What Kirk's shooting exposed is the divide over Israel. There is a loud group, led by Candace Owens, who think Kirk's death was a hit ordered by Israel.
It is my understanding that there is another schism on the right represented by Kirk who was a supporter of Israel and the alleged shooter who was not. It is apparently important to some that one must decide who one hates more, Jews or Muslims.
In 2016 I was saved from descending into hate by a sermon on Bayard Rustin, the organizer of the I Have a Dream March. Rustin said that the response to the virulent racist Mississippi Senator Eastland should be love, and the way we love him is to take away his power.
Love conquers hate and fear. Take away Trump's power. Solidarity. Focus.
Trump, Musk, Mace, Noem & so many on the right are always the victims. BTW, Trump answered Ms. Kirk's call for forgiveness with incitement to hatred of critics. Trump's with Stephen Miller not Erika Kirk as a crusader for hate & war against critics that he views as less than human.
But aren't we in the "Golden Age" of Trump approved speech, gaslighting, propaganda, extortion & massive corruption? So little time, so much corruption... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXNJ3V9lzg
Get up stand up, resist the fraudster authoritarians & #Vote Blue!