In Defense of True Dialogue: Why Charlie Kirk’s Methods Should Not Be Our Model
In our collective shock at yet another shooting, we must not make a critical error: conflating condemnation of political violence with endorsement of Kirk’s approach to political engagement.
Emese Ilyés
Sep 22, 2025 Common Dreams
Political violence is never acceptable, and as researcher Erika Chenoweth has demonstrated, it is not an effective way to enact social change. While Kirk’s death represents a dangerous escalation in our national discourse that further threatens our fragile democratic foundations, how we talk about it will determine whether we move toward our shared humanity or whether we reinforce the dehumanizing context that Kirk himself, along with Trump, contributed to creating.
In our collective shock at yet another shooting, we must not make a critical error: conflating condemnation of political violence with endorsement of Kirk’s approach to political engagement. As voices across the political spectrum, including that of Ezra Klein, have rushed to characterize Kirk as someone who was “practicing politics in exactly the right way,” we risk elevating a model of engagement that was antithetical to the kind of meaningful dialogue our democracy desperately needs right now.
As an educator who has spent years understanding and facilitating genuine political dialogue, I feel compelled to speak up. We stand at a crossroads where our response to this moment will shape how we understand political engagement going forward. We can choose to learn from this moment—to honestly name political polarization as an urgent crisis requiring our collective attention, and to truthfully acknowledge how Trump, his MAGA movement, and weaponized social media have directly fueled this polarization. Or we can miss this crucial opportunity for thoughtful national reflection and make the devastating mistake of holding up Kirk’s methods as an example to follow.
What Real Dialogue Looks LikeExtensive research in psychology has given us clear insights into what constitutes meaningful political dialogue. Patricia Gurin, Biren Nagda, and Ximena Zúñiga’s groundbreaking work on intergroup dialogue shows that structured conversations across differences can foster insight into others’ worldviews, increase empathy, and motivate collaborative action toward equity and justice.
Dr. Tania Israel, whose research forms the foundation for meaningful cross-political conversation, emphasizes that true dialogue requires active listening, “listening to understand instead of listening to respond.” It involves creating space for elaboration through open-ended questions, demonstrating genuine curiosity about different perspectives, and building the kind of connection that allows people to share their stories and values authentically.
This is not what Kirk practiced. What Kirk did on college campuses was not dialogue, it was performance art designed for viral content and ideological point scoring. His social media accounts documented a consistent pattern of cruel, confrontational bullying that prioritized entertainment value over genuine understanding.
The Kirk Model: Bullying as Entertainment, Not Engagement
An examination of Kirk’s campus appearances reveals a pattern that consistently violated the basic principles of respectful dialogue. Faculty members who witnessed his events noted that Kirk routinely interrupted students, mocked young people for entertainment value, and engaged in what can only be described as organized bullying. His ” prove me wrong” format was designed not to genuinely engage with differing viewpoints, but to create gotcha moments that would play well on social media. Like Trump, he was first and foremost a social media influencer.
In my classroom, if someone acted the way Kirk did with students, I would feel obligated to redirect the conversation back to our class agreements about respectful dialogue, agreements that establish ground rules ensuring no one’s humanity is denied and no one’s reality is erased. Kirk’s approach consistently violated these basic principles of respectful discourse.
Students at California State University, Northridge recognized this when they organized against his appearance on their campus, noting that Kirk had routinely engaged in antisemitic conspiracy theories, racist rhetoric against civil rights, and discriminatory language targeting LGBTQ+ students. These weren’t political differences; they were fundamental violations of the respect required for genuine dialogue.
The Dangerous False Equivalence
As journalist Maria Ressa reminds us, good journalism requires a courageous commitment to facts and ethical standards in the face of disinformation. Its central mission is to hold power accountable and serve as a bulwark against democracy’s erosion. Yet in the aftermath of Kirk’s death, much of our media has failed this test by creating a false equivalence between condemning political violence and celebrating Kirk’s methods.
Columnist Jamelle Bouie captured the essence of this problem: “That the Trump administration and the MAGA movement are less interested in deliberation and governance than they are in domination and obedience should shape and structure our sense of this political moment.” When one faction’s explicit goal is to curb the rights of opponents and force them into political inequality, calls for dialogue that deny that reality are harmful.
Kirk was not engaged in the kind of good-faith dialogue that democracy requires. He was, as Bouie notes, part of a movement more interested in domination than deliberation. His campus appearances were not exercises in democratic engagement, and no, he was not practicing politics the right way. Kirk’s campus appearances were trolling operations designed to humiliate and dehumanize students who disagreed with him.
commondreams.org |
