We Have to Talk

On a micro- and a macro-level, the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination has been revelatory. From the jaw-dropping gall of the Trump administration's flagrant attempts to capitalize on the anger and shock of the moment to target and silence anyone who disagrees with them - including 'Antifa', leftist groups, and Jimmy Kimmel. On the national stage, the way that commentators and opposition lawmakers are still perennially taken by surprise by the sheer brazenness of violations from all the Trumpy co-conspirators is  disheartening.  

To me, the most revelatory discussions center around the work of Ezra Klein in the New York Times. He has generated three pieces in the aftermath of Kirk's killing: (a) an article on the same day of the shooting:"Charlie Kirk as pursuing Politics the Right Way" that praised Kirk as a persuasive political operative, (b) a follow-up that focused and emphasized the importance of political argument with people from the other side including a very recent interview Ben Shapiro; and (c) a substantive and thoroughly excellent discussion with Govenor Spencer Cox from Utah - who has been acting as the primary political spokesperson for Charlie Kirk's murder 'on the ground' in Utah and has been one of the few conservative voices calling for calm and turning down the temperature.   

The clear, unambiguous point that Ezra Klein has been making has been that we must reinstate political argumentation across the political left and right and re-engage with each other. There is a rising tide of political violence that is symptomatic of a deeper alienation between the two sides and has the potential of being disastrous for America as a country in the very near future.

Personally, I would claim that Trump's election in 2016 and in 2024 are clear evidence of that already - but now, I fear, the worst is yet to come for the unfolding disaster that we are all facing day-by-day in the USA in 2025.   

These articles and podcasts attracted a lot of criticism from progressives, clearly frustrated Ezra Klein's tone. In his first article, published the day after as the murder, he was civil, generous, warm even. In a online discussions it was immediately apparent how frustrating this was to people on the left - who were used to a strongly negative portrayal of Kirk as a polemicist, antagonist for almost every progressive position, and a generally evil person. I found that advocating for any sense of moderation was met with derision, dismissal, and personal attack. This has characterized by commentators such as Jonathan Haidt as pretty typical as the argumentation style from progressives when faced with conservative-oriented conversations. 

I feel, that in this moment, Ezra Klein is onto something. Many of the rebuttals and counter-arguments being published name him directly, and the fact that he is attracting such a strong reaction is telling.

Why could that be?

The majority of criticism for his approach seems to be that acknowledging Kirk's effectiveness with his audience in any positive light somehow legitimizes what Kirk was doing [1]. In the articles that I read, Klein seemed quite level-headed, accurate, and critical of some of the actions that Kirk (such as creating a list of academics to persecute, calling for the execution of Joe Biden, etc), but always maintained the tone of civil discussion, never adopting the approach of a moralistic condemnation that could only block off and destroy the possibility of future debate. 

This is the key issue.

Listening to Ezra's Klein's interviews, he gives his subjects a great deal of deference and allows them to speak extensively. He does not attempt to browbeat them into submission. He doesn't try to 'win' the argument through rhetorical tricks, volume, moralistic posturing or even raising his voice. He just lets them talk. 

This is excellent - and very much in-keeping with his apparent mission of having people on the left and right have meaningful and productive arguments with each other. 

When the most objectionable people on his show are required to actually explain their political positions, it becomes very clear just how weak and frankly bizarre many of them are. Not only that, but many of the interactions are incredibly insightful to help all of us understand the other. Just why do right-wingers frame their thoughts in this way? Why do they support Trump even now? What is the real motivation for their thinking? 

Providing such a resource for us all is incredibly valuable. 

Having said that, I would criticize Mr. Klein's approach as too anodyne, polite, and shallow. A really good argument really gets into the meat of something and he never seems to really do that. Perhaps these kinds of podcast-based interviews cannot really dive that deeply into a topic, but I feel that the seriousness of the current moment means that we should really make an effort to focus on key aspects of accuracy, depth, and historical context of the talking points being made. I am not him, and I’m guessing he has good reasons for doing things the way he does.

The frustration and immediate moralistic reaction that we shouldn’t talk to these people because they are evil is boneheaded and geared only to silencing them, not hearing them and persuading them. In the words of Hal Wyner from season 1 of Netflix’s The Diplomat (an entirely fictional character) “Talk to everyone. Talk to the dictator, and the war criminal. Talk to the poor schmuck three levels down who's so pissed he has to sit in the back of the second car, he may be ready to turn. Talk to terrorists. Talk to everyone. Fail, and fail again. And brush yourself off. And fail again. Because maybe... Maybe“.

We have to talk. It is essential. Perhaps our future depends on it.

REFERENCES

1. Some people who have offered excellent counterpieces to Ezra Klein's wrirting about Charlie Kirk are Marisa Kabas in the Handbasket Direct Email to Ezra Klein, Elizabeth Spiers in the Nation: Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning; Ta-Nehisi Coates in the New Yorker Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Causel; Nathan Robinson in Current Affairs: As The Far Right Rises, Don’t Be Ezra Klein.