There are moments when tragedy lays bare not only the fragility of life, but the stark choices we face as a society. The assassination of Charlie Kirk — a husband, a father, and a nationally recognized conservative leader — should have been such a moment. A time for sober reflection, for unity in condemning political violence, for reaffirming that no matter our disagreements, bullets can never replace ballots.
But for the editors of The New Republic, it was something else entirely: an opportunity. An opportunity not to heal, but to harden. Not to stand against violence, but to weaponize it.
Charlie Kirk and the Empathy Trap https://t.co/cwarcHVzVO
— The New Republic (@newrepublic) September 13, 2025
In an astonishing article titled “Charlie Kirk and the Empathy Trap,” the magazine declared that Democrats’ statements condemning Kirk’s assassination were “too tasteful for the moment.” Empathy, the piece argued, “props up Republicans and Trumpists as legitimate and normal political actors.” The prescription? Democrats should adopt a new tone: callous, perhaps, but short of cruel. Suggested lines included: “I’m sorry his family is suffering. I wish his message would die with him.”
Read that again. The widow of a murdered man, his two fatherless children, are to be granted only a perfunctory nod — followed by a wish that his life’s work be buried with his body. That isn’t just political hardball. It’s moral bankruptcy.
The essay sneered at Democratic leaders who responded with the expected calls for calm. Former Vice President Kamala Harris: “Political violence has no place in America.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “Completely incompatible with American values.” Gabby Giffords — who herself survived an assassination attempt: “We must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence.” According to The New Republic, those statements weren’t dignified, they were weak.
Elizabeth Warren on people who say Dems needs to tone down their rhetoric: “Oh, please. Why don’t you start with the president of the United States? And every ugly meme he’s posted and every ugly word.” pic.twitter.com/v2KA3i13ie
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 11, 2025
Instead, the magazine urged Democrats to “shove Republicans’ faces in the consequences of their actions,” even as it rehashed Kirk’s past defense of the Second Amendment to insinuate that his death was some kind of cosmic irony. “Nobody talks like this,” the piece gloated, “but Charlie Kirk was right. Gun deaths are the inevitable outcome of valuing the Second Amendment… I can’t imagine that Kirk’s family finds it a prudent deal.”
This is not analysis. It is justification. It is narrative-building atop fresh blood.
And it comes against a backdrop where the worst voices on the left are openly celebrating Kirk’s murder on social media. Some of them have already been fired. A site called Charlie’s Murderers has now launched to catalog those who cheered or mocked his death. The rot runs deeper than anonymous trolls. It’s bleeding into institutions, into public discourse, and into once-respected publications that see political gain where the rest of us see a grave.
