The assassination of Charlie Kirk in September was nothing short of a national tragedy. Yet, rather than bringing Americans together, it has fragmented our society even deeper. Conservatives have watched in disbelief as many on the left have not only failed to condemn this act of violence but have gone so far as to celebrate it. Some feeble attempts at denunciation were muddied with remarks suggesting that Kirk somehow deserved his fate.
Initially, a wave of solidarity surged through the conservative ranks, a collective call for justice in honor of Kirk’s legacy. That unity, however, was fleeting. What followed was a bitter struggle over how to remember Kirk, and this infighting is far more damaging than mere political disagreements—it’s tearing apart the very movement he dedicated himself to building.
Charlie Kirk’s murder was repugnant, a crime of monstrous proportions. His legacy should not serve as fodder for further division.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us about the dangers of entangling alliances with foreign nations. He cautioned against allowing foreign influence to corrupt our political landscape. Washington foresaw that such allegiances could warp domestic loyalty, branding those who dared to question these alliances as traitors. His wisdom rings true today as we witness fractures within conservatism.
The relationship with Israel has long been a cornerstone of conservative ideology. Many view support for Israel as not just policy but a moral imperative—especially among evangelical conservatives. Criticism of this alliance, however, has been made politically toxic. One can voice concerns about relations with Britain or Germany without fear, yet to question our bond with Israel is to invite immediate accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, or bigotry.
The reality is that aligning policy too closely with a foreign nation breeds internal strife and opens the door to outside meddling. Countries like Qatar invest heavily in American institutions while nations like India mobilize to assert their influence. None of this would have surprised Washington. These outcomes were entirely predictable, yet both sides ignore his sage advice, forsaking the restraint he advocated.
Kirk was a masterful coalition builder, uniting diverse factions of conservatives under the Trump banner and the MAGA movement. That’s what makes the current civil war following his death all the more corrosive. Conspiracy theories abound, allies are turning against each other, and private conversations are weaponized. The spectacle of this self-destruction is nothing short of appalling.
The tendency to elevate Kirk’s private words to scripture echoes a disturbing trend in how we interpret our foundational texts—distilling them into mere proof texts rather than seeking their true intent.
Kirk’s views on Israel were nuanced. He cherished the state and recognized its biblical significance, yet he also harbored valid America First concerns about military commitments and vocalized discomfort with the pressure from certain donors. He aimed to smooth tensions surrounding Israel in the conservative discourse, solving rather than exacerbating conflicts. His complicated stance reflects the reality of most people’s views when the noise subsides.
Rather than seizing the outrage following Kirk’s assassination to combat the leftist terror that instigated it, many conservatives have instead targeted each other, drawing lines in the sand. One faction expresses such disdain for Israel that it jeopardizes America’s interests, while another insists that any deviation from unwavering support amounts to treason.
At a moment when conservatives should unite for our collective survival, we find ourselves engaged in purity tests.
Let’s be clear: Israel will persist as a political reality. The conservative movement requires a robust, cohesive strategy. While evangelical support remains firm, it is diminishing among younger Christians. Pro-Israel advocates must make a compelling case if they wish to maintain broad-based support. Resistance to the current alliance will only grow.
Pro-Israel conservatives must learn to tolerate dissent rather than incite public witch hunts. Those who wish to reassess our relationship with Israel should ground their arguments in logic and pragmatism. Washington’s warnings about favored nations and the corrosive effects of hatred in politics are as relevant today as ever.
Too many on the left have openly exhibited a murderous contempt for conservatives, and that reality is glaring. Yet the critical question within conservatism is whether we view our ideological rivals as mere opponents to debate or as enemies to eradicate altogether. Regardless of one’s stance on Israel, neither side is calling for violence against children or families on the other side of the aisle. This basic standard—at the very least—must hold if we are to build a resilient coalition.
This is not a call for centrist compromise; I have my own firmly held beliefs. Nevertheless, Charlie Kirk envisioned a movement capable of cohesion—a broad tent that could withstand differing opinions. The infighting among conservatives must cease. The stakes are far too high.
If we persist in this destructive trend, we will squander our political influence and pave the way for even greater divisions. Washington warned us about the disastrous consequences when foreign loyalties and religious fervor twist public life—this factional hatred threatens to break our nation apart. Conservatives must embrace this wisdom, not to water down our principles, but to safeguard the only structure that enables those principles to thrive: a cohesive political majority.
Kirk’s murder was a horrendous crime. It cannot become the catalyst for disassembling the movement he helped forge. The left deserves our fierce opposition, relentless and merciless, but we must not allow internal strife to hand them victory. It’s time we put down the knives. Honor Kirk by rallying around the coalition he believed in, or watch as our movement withers away in impotence.
