I saw the ever-harrowing message come in from a friend on Facebook messenger two days ago… “Have you seen the news?” I replied. “No. I’m focused on other things atm.” That’s how the news got broken to me that Charlie Kirk was assassinated at a rally in Utah.
The biggest tragedy since 9/11? That’s a big claim, but it was sufficient to make me laugh - “Wonder what this could be?!” I actually balk at my own reply, in hindsight. Oh dang, was that really all I could come up with? I probably wasn’t giving it all that much attention.
The Partisan Divide
If you think of yourself as conservative, or right-wing, and you take any interest at all in American politics, you would probably align your perspective with my friend and be up in arms at the news. Charlie Kirk set an inspirational figure in his willingness to spar with the “woke/radical left” and he did it with class. No one deserves to be murdered for speaking their mind and their beliefs.
I’m sure there may also be some views of his, maybe even many, that you would have disagreed with strongly. I myself would debate the merits of the pro-choice argument, or more stringent gun controls. Who knows, maybe Charlie would now, too…
Here’s how we typically process political violence - pick your team, feel the appropriate emotions of either satisfied, dark joy or outrage, and blame the “opposition” without looking at one’s own side of the street. All it breeds is more division, and loss of the bigger picture. It made me think of a quote from the later seasons of the Peaky Blinders, where Tommy f*in Shelby (yes, I believe that is his actual middle name) explains politics in a way that has stuck with me forever, I feel needs repeating right now and so I want to share it with you.
Politics as Enso, Not War
We are sold an illusion that politics exists as a spectrum, a straight line from progressive left to conservative right. Build up into camps, adhered to as tightly as sports team fandoms and polarised continuously through media. It’s like they’re warring armies.
This “reality” depends on one thing - the limits of attention and discernment to question, due to its lower priority in our lives than our day-to-day survival and personal aspirations. Because all of us know that deep down, there are views we hold that could be attached to either camp.
The truth is more simple and profound. Politics is a circle. It’s one unbroken line, bound together at every point. Yes, there is tension, but it’s not merely between left and right. There is also a Y-axis to this graph, and with that frame politics as we have been encouraged to know it will unravel around you.
“In Japanese, "Ensō" (円相) means "circle" and symbolizes a profound concept in Zen Buddhism, representing enlightenment, strength, elegance, the universe, and the cycle of life. It is a hand-drawn symbol created with one or two uninhibited brushstrokes, reflecting the ** of no-mind, perfection, and freedom.”
Moderate or Militant?
Most of us hold a number of our opinions loosely, and are willing to have our beliefs altered by someone we know, something we hear or read, if the argument is made persuasively enough. I’d say that’s my exact definition of what makes someone a moderate!
But the things we care about? Feel so strongly for that we’d advocate, campaign, maybe fight after a few too many beers even? That’s militancy. It’s the fire in your belly that would lead you to answer a call to arms. And, believe it or not, we need those people in the world too.
I would argue that Charlie Kirk was a “militant conservative” - but I don’t mean that in the way you might think. He was outspoken about his views, yes. He was confident, and maybe even somewhat brash. Many disagreed with him. But he was brave. And he was of service to his country, agree or disagree with his views.
Kirk was demonstrating how militant energy is SUPPOSED to work. High passion, vigorous engagement, but channeled through dialogue and debate rather than violence. He was literally showing up on hostile territory (progressive universities) and using words, logic and conversation to challenge what he saw as imbalanced ideas. And he was succeeding.
That's exactly what the system needs for healthy rebalancing. When liberal ideas go too far in one direction, you need strong conservative voices to push back - not with violence, but with better arguments, different perspectives, harder questions. Kirk was doing the work of democratic tension. And he was shot for it. That’s a travesty, for everyone.
Why the Kirk Assassination Makes No Sense
Both Charlie Kirk and the man who shot him thought they were serving their country. The irony is that Charlie Kirk was doing it the way that Gandhi or Martin Luther King did - peacefully, with sharp intellect, well-chosen words and the bravery to walk into the lion’s den (at least if you think of politics linearly. I doubt he did.)
He was militant but peaceful, passion and belief channeled through debate, not violence. Showing up to challenge what he felt was progressive overreach through conversation only.
Robinson killed the peaceful solution. He silenced a voice that he felt was fascist, but in my opinion was just a part of the necessary political tension that keeps a nation on what is actually its optimal course. He also, unwittingly, made universities less safe for debate! Kirk was proof that you can challenge ideas that oppose your own purely intellectually - “look, I can walk onto these campuses, debate these ideas and win through better argument.”
Robinson’s rebuttal? “If you try to challenge progressive orthodoxy peacefully on university campuses, you might literally die.” Not an ideal situation for anyone.
Democratic Tension at Work
There are two main ways that democratic tension sustains itself, and they are these - peace, and war.
If we don’t maintain the capacity for the peaceful dipole mechanism, a hypothetical system will often find other ways to self-correct. Those ways are usually messier and substantially more destructive. 22 year old Tyler Robinson didn’t just kill Kirk, he also took a shot at the model that is the only thing (in my opinion) that prevents much worse political violence.
What if we looked at politics like a circle, rather than a line? There is no “other side” to defeat.
The dipole is sacred, just like the Enso and the enlightenment it symboilses. The gap between us isn’t division, it’s health for self-correction at all levels of a system. When, in this example at least, we realise that we’re all part of the same nation and we all want what we think or feel is best for it, the circle closes.
Militant energy is needed. It powers change. It fuels growth and evolution. It pushes the boundaries, challenges the tyrants and holds off injustice. It is an essential part of the human experience, at an individual, a community and a societal level. But it should be channelled in as peaceful a way as possible.
With this frame of reference in mind, political violence is literally like attacking yourself. Damaging your own ecosystem. It’s narrow-minded to the extreme, and destabilising to the whole. Opposition, at a philosophical level, comes back to co-operation.
One Single Brushstroke
The next time a friend texts me "Have you seen the news?" about political violence, I'll try to remind them of the brushstroke. It’s not left attacking right, but the circle attacking itself. Not opposing armies, but one system in pain, trying to heal.
The gap in the Enso isn't broken - it's where the circle completes. Where militant conservative energy and militant liberal energy recognize they're part of the same stroke, serving the same canvas.
Kirk and Robinson were both serving what they thought was best for America. The tragedy isn't that they disagreed - it's that one couldn't see they were both trying to be a part of painting the same picture.
The brushstroke continues. Our job isn't to pick a side of the circle - it's to help the whole thing stay unbroken.
So here's my question for you: when you see your political "opponents" next - whether that's online, on the news, or across the dinner table - what would change if you remembered you're looking at the other half of your own brushstroke?