Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Damages a Foundational Pillar of American Democracy

Kirk’s assassination is particularly telling on this point since he invited debate over issues and received a deadly bullet for his effort. This is not to argue that Kirk’s particular ideas were good or bad. This is to support that debating in the marketplace of ideas is essential for American democracy.

The idea that free competition of ideas through free speech is the best method to separate falsehood from fact goes back to the writings of philosophers John Milton and John Stuart Mill. The phrase “marketplace of ideas” comes from a dissent written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr., in a 1919 case. He encouraged the free trade of ideas in a competitive market.

Debating issues in the marketplace of ideas necessitates vigorous advocacy, but it should not lead to extreme violence. Yet, our recent history says the marketplace of ideas concept is failing. Too often, advocates and believers dismiss the give and take of public intercourse and reach for a gun.

You can feel the failure when heated rhetoric displays political opponents as villains beyond reproach. You can feel the failure when the cold-blooded murder of an insurance executive is hailed and praised in cyberspace and is highlighted on the stage. You can feel the failure at raucous congressional town hall sessions when congress members are shouted down. You can feel the failure at candidate debates where advocates for one candidate try to outshout the supporters of the other candidate. You can feel the failure on daily talk shows where the rhetoric is used not to inform but to excite and rally supporters to metaphorically pick up torches and pitchforks.

Is there hope that the marketplace of ideas reinforced by reasoned debate can play a crucial role in bringing citizens of the country closer together?

In the shadow of the most recent political violence in all quarters of the political landscape, it does not feel promising. Especially with some disgusting social media responses to the Kirk killing and even outbreaks of rage, accusations and threats on the floor of Congress.

Recognizing the humanity of political opponents would be an advisable first step. Taking that step will bring us closer to a healthy marketplace of ideas, which is essential to preserve the American model of government.

****

One last personal note on the recent tragic event. The circumstances surrounding Kirk’s killing resonated with me because it brought back a memory of an experience that happened decades ago.

As an aide to Howard Jarvis, the chief architect of Proposition 13, I accompanied him to a forum to discuss his ballot initiative to cut California state’s income tax in 1980. The forum was held in an outdoor quad at Sacramento State with a large audience of students, teachers, and anyone who wanted to drop by—similar surroundings to Kirk’s appearance at Utah Valley University.

The questions to Jarvis were hostile and angry. As the yelling and cursing intensified the program ended early and Jarvis and I were escorted by university police to our car at the edge of the quad, continually surrounded by a loud, screaming crowd. Once in the car, some in the intimidating crowd surrounded the car, beating on the hood and trunk. Finally, the police were able to clear a path, and we drove off. No horrific violence beyond some dents in the car that day but a tense moment that gave me a glimpse of an ugly future.

And here we are.