It began with a video clip.

The fundamental difference between a professional military and an armed gang lies in the rigid adherence to codes of conduct.

On Monday, a quiet but profound victory for the constitutional order took place in a Philadelphia courtroom.

An Independent Wrestler has been arrested for sending intimate pictures of himself to an underage girl. This is not the first time that he has done this, either.

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk—founder of Turning Point USA, conservative activist, and one of the most polarizing figures in American political life—was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University. He was 31 years old. His death, like the assassinations and attempted assassinations of other political figures in recent years, is a grim reminder that political violence is not an abstraction. It is a direct assault on the democratic principle that ideas—not bullets—should decide the course of a nation. Kirk’s passing has prompted tributes from allies, condemnation of violence from across the political spectrum, and renewed debate about his role in shaping the political consciousness of a generation. For those committed to democracy, his life offers a complex case study: a man who championed free speech and civic engagement, yet also embraced a style of politics that often deepened polarization and eroded trust in democratic institutions. The Rise of a Conservative Prodigy Born Charles James Kirk in 1993 in Arlington Heights, Illinois, Kirk grew up in the Chicago suburbs, active in church and sports. His political awakening came early—campaigning against a cafeteria price hike in high school and volunteering for Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk (no relation). At 18, he co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA) with encouragement from Tea Party activist Bill Montgomery. From the outset, TPUSA’s mission was unapologetically ideological: to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government”. Kirk’s genius was not in policy innovation but in branding and mobilization. He understood that in the age of social media, politics is as much about identity and belonging as it is about legislation. Turning Point USA: Movement-Building in the Age of Polarization Under Kirk’s leadership, TPUSA grew into a sprawling network with a presence on over 3,500 campuses. It became a pipeline for conservative youth activism, hosting flashy conferences with strobe lights and pyrotechnics4, and featuring marquee Republican figures from Donald Trump to Nikki Haley. From a pro-democracy lens, TPUSA’s success is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it engaged young Americans in politics—a vital function in a democracy where youth turnout often lags. On the other, its tactics frequently mirrored the zero-sum logic of partisan warfare, framing opponents not as fellow citizens with different views, but as existential threats to be defeated. Kirk’s “prove me wrong” campus debates embodied this tension. They were, at their best, exercises in civil discourse—public forums where ideas could be tested. At their worst, they became viral spectacles designed to “own” the opposition, reinforcing echo chambers rather than bridging divides. The Faith Factor In later years, Kirk expanded his activism into explicitly religious territory, co-founding Turning Point Faith with Pastor Rob McCoy. This initiative aimed to “empower Christians to put their faith into action” in the political sphere. For Kirk, politics was not merely about governance; it was a moral and spiritual battle. From a pro-democracy standpoint, faith-based organizing is not inherently problematic—religious groups have long been engines of civic engagement. The challenge arises when political rhetoric frames opponents as enemies of God, as Kirk sometimes did. Such framing risks transforming political disagreement into moral absolutism, making compromise—the lifeblood of democracy—nearly impossible. The Trump Era and the Politics of Loyalty Kirk’s rise was inseparable from the political ascent of Donald Trump. He became one of Trump’s most visible surrogates, defending him on college campuses, in the media, and through TPUSA’s political arm, Turning Point Action. He embraced Trump’s populist style, casting politics as a battle between “real Americans” and corrupt elites. This alignment brought Kirk influence and access, but also tied his legacy to the fortunes of a single political figure. In a healthy democracy, political movements are bigger than any one leader. By rooting TPUSA so firmly in Trumpism, Kirk risked narrowing its appeal and deepening the personalization of politics—a trend that undermines institutional stability. The Contradictions of Free Speech Advocacy Kirk’s defenders rightly note his commitment to speaking on hostile campuses, often facing protests and petitions to disinvite him. He argued that free speech was under siege, particularly for conservatives in academia. His willingness to engage in open debate, even with ideological opponents, is a democratic virtue. Yet, Kirk’s own rhetoric sometimes blurred the line between defending free speech and amplifying misinformation—on topics from COVID-19 to election integrity. In a democracy, free speech is essential, but so is a shared commitment to truth. When public figures use their platforms to spread falsehoods, they erode the informational foundation on which democratic decision-making depends. The Human Dimension Beyond politics, Kirk was a husband and father of two. Friends and allies describe him as a man of deep personal faith, loyal to those close to him, and generous with his time7. These humanizing details matter—not to excuse harmful rhetoric or tactics, but to remind us that political figures are more than their public personas. In a democracy, it is possible—and necessary—to hold two truths at once: to condemn political violence unequivocally, and to critically examine the ideas and strategies of those who shape public life. The Cost of Polarization Kirk’s assassination is part of a disturbing trend: the normalization of political violence in America. Whether the target is a conservative activist, a Democratic lawmaker, or a former president, such acts strike at the heart of democratic governance. They silence voices, harden divisions, and make public service more dangerous. Kirk’s own career both benefited from and contributed to this polarized environment. His skill at mobilizing supporters was matched by his talent for provoking outrage—a dynamic that drives engagement in the digital age but corrodes the norms of mutual respect and shared citizenship. Lessons for a Pro-Democracy Future From a pro-democracy perspective, Kirk’s life offers several lessons: Engagement Matters – Kirk proved that young people can be mobilized around political ideas. The challenge is to channel that energy toward inclusive, pluralistic goals. Rhetoric Shapes Reality – Words can inspire civic participation or incite division. Leaders must choose language that invites debate without dehumanizing opponents. Institutions Over Individuals – Movements tied too closely to a single leader risk collapse when that leader falters. Healthy democracies require loyalty to principles, not personalities. Free Speech Requires Truth – Defending the right to speak must go hand in hand with a commitment to factual integrity. Conclusion: Beyond the Man, Toward the Republic Charlie Kirk’s death is a tragedy—for his family, his supporters, and for a nation already fraying under the weight of division. His life’s work will be remembered differently depending on one’s politics: as a heroic defense of conservative values, or as a cautionary tale about the perils of populist polarization. From a pro-democracy standpoint, the task is not to erase his contributions or vilify his memory, but to learn from the contradictions he embodied. He demonstrated the power of youth engagement, the importance of showing up in contested spaces, and the dangers of framing politics as a holy war. If America is to emerge from this era of division, it will require leaders—left, right, and center—who can inspire passion without inflaming hatred, who can defend their beliefs without undermining the democratic system that allows those beliefs to be contested. That is the legacy worth striving for, and the one by which we should measure all who step into the public square. You don't have to agree with what Charlie Kirk has said, but at least he wanted to have dialogue with people who disagree with him. Mainstream Democrats have universally condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk. MAGA Republicans are declaring “war” against their political opponents. I do not mourn Charlie Kirk, but his murder was wrong, full stop, and is likely to lead to an escalation in repression and political violence.

YouTube video by Matthew Hollie

His lying and temper tantrums aside, evidence abounds that the president's most important, and dangerous, feature is his ignorance.

There is no other way to put this, but I’m going to do my best.

Why the Black and Jewish Vote Must Be Central to Democracy’s Future

Israel has the right to defend itself.

In July 2025, the FCC greenlit the Paramount-Skydance merger, a decision sold to the public as a routine business consolidation in the entertainment sector.