Charlie Kirk: A Life, A Death, and the Divisions He Left Behind By Bashir Lucas Samson Lukman

The murder of Charlie Kirk shocked the American political landscape. As founder of Turning Point USA and one of the most visible young conservatives, Kirk was both admired and despised. His death has sparked mourning in some quarters and grim satisfaction in others. But beyond emotions lies a deeper question: who might have wanted him gone, and why?

 

Who Could Have Targeted Him?

 

Charlie Kirk spent his career wading into America’s fiercest cultural battles, which created multiple fronts of hostility:

 

Pro-Palestinian activists: Kirk was a staunch supporter of Israel and a vocal critic of the Palestinian cause. At a time when Gaza and the Middle East dominate headlines, his unapologetic Zionism made him a prime target of anger.

 

LGBTQ+ advocates: He repeatedly opposed gay rights, transgender health care, and Pride activism. For many in these communities, he wasn’t just a debater — he was seen as a threat to their dignity and security.

 

“Anti-woke” resistance: Kirk turned “anti-woke” into a brand, attacking everything from critical race theory to gender-neutral bathrooms. That made him a hero on the right but a villain to progressives who felt he misrepresented and inflamed sensitive issues.

 

The Far Left & Anti-MAGA activists: Kirk’s closeness to Donald Trump and Christian nationalism made him a proxy enemy for those who see MAGA as a danger to democracy.

 

The Far Right fringe: Ironically, even some on the extreme right disliked him. Certain white nationalist groups accused him of being “too soft” on race or too close to Israel. In politics, enemies can exist on both sides of the spectrum.

 

The Problem of “Total Resentment”

 

Here’s the paradox: many of those celebrating his death resent him for different reasons — sometimes even contradictory ones.

 

If you hated him for supporting Israel, can you also hate him for opposing gay rights?

 

If you saw him as a threat because of his Christian nationalism, can you also resent him for championing free markets?

 

If you despised his stance on COVID-19 vaccines, does that logically connect to his views on gender debates?

 

 

To “resent him for everything” risks turning Kirk into a caricature of pure villainy rather than a political actor with a coherent worldview.

 

 

Why Consistency Matters

 

Hating Kirk for all his positions doesn’t make sense because those positions weren’t random — they flowed from a particular ideological core:

 

Christian conservatism (shaping his stance on LGBTQ+ and abortion).

 

Populist nationalism (fueling his support for Trump and skepticism of elites).

 

Pro-Israel alignment (both religious and geopolitical).

 

Anti-progressive identity politics (what he called “anti-woke”).

 

 

You may find these principles harmful or dangerous, but recognizing their consistency matters. If critics scatter their resentment across every issue, they risk missing the bigger picture of what he actually represented.

 

Beyond Love and Hate

 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination leaves America more polarized than ever. Some will see him as a martyr for conservative values; others will see his death as justice served. But the truth lies somewhere deeper: he was a product of the culture wars he helped ignite.

 

Charlie is gone but his support for Israel will not be forgotten by the victims of the Israeli aggression. As for his support for the gun policy, we may not outrightly say he was a victim of what he defended because, the free guns policy regardless, there is motive to assassinate him and that could have happened in a Nation where guns aren’t as free. Yet, we cannot deny, with the increasing gun violence in the USA, that the streets need fewer firearms in circulation.

Bashir Lucas Samson Lukman