The murder of Charlie Kirk has sent shockwaves through conservative circles, and oddly enough, some reactions from the left were equally startling. While prominent leftists condemned the act, many everyday progressives took to social media to celebrate the violent death of a family man or to mock his legacy. This has made conservatives realize that not everyone around them was horrified by the assassination of a political adversary.
In the aftermath, trade conflicts, international disputes, and the usual political controversies have drawn attention away from a more troubling realization: American politics has shifted dramatically. The common understanding that nearly everyone adheres to basic political principles is, well, perhaps a bit outdated now.
Interestingly, it seems that conservatives didn’t instigate this state of affairs and they certainly can’t wish it away back to normal.
Often, people resort to denial when faced with issues they find overwhelming. The thought that a notable segment of Americans might now consider political violence acceptable is something conservatives would prefer to avoid confronting. Yet, the reminder keeps surfacing.
Videos circulating online again showcased individuals making light of Kirk’s demise, including performances that trivialized his death, and comments from the streamer Hasan Piker, who identifies as a democratic socialist. It’s much simpler to engage in debates over tactics, personas, or the latest controversy than to ponder what kind of political environment fosters individuals who can celebrate an assassination.
Piker’s remarks are particularly disturbing since he had previously met Kirk and even debated him. His career thrives on hyperbolic language and violent political fantasies, which include extreme views toward landlords and capitalists. The fact that he continues to thrive online illustrates the significant disparity that conservatives have long sensed: comments that would be career-ending on the right are often seen as edgy and entertaining from the left.
America has been awash with good fortune, making it easy for many to overlook the historical peculiarity of our political context. The U.S. occupies a vast, resource-rich expanse shielded by oceans, and it has fought surprisingly few wars on its own territory. Generations have passed without facing significant internal threats, leading to a rather unrealistic view of politics as a consistently orderly enterprise.
Modern citizens expect their representatives to travel to Washington, make eloquent speeches, win arguments, and engage in cordial handshakes with opponents. Each election is proclaimed as the most consequential, yet the process remains unchanged because, fundamentally, the disputes are assumed to be solvable. If it’s about tax rates, retirement age, or social security, well, that seems manageable. Those are merely technical disagreements within a broadly shared political framework.
However, some disagreements defy that categorization. Take the contentious issue known as “gender-affirming care” for minors, as an example. One camp insists on the necessity of protecting children from harmful procedures while the other argues for state intervention against parents who resist. Their respective victories are mutually exclusive—one side’s win inevitably leads to the other’s undoing. This epitomizes existential politics.
This shift is why discussions around Carl Schmitt’s theories are resurfacing among conservatives. Some reduce his notion of the friend-enemy distinction to a rationale for treating opposing views as threats, but more importantly, Schmitt understood that politics becomes fundamentally political when groups perceive a conflict as a matter of survival. This lens is gaining traction as Americans increasingly find themselves in disputes that feel existential.
The left champions policies many conservatives fear could fundamentally alter the nation: unrestricted immigration, on-demand abortion, preferential hiring based on race, intense secularization, and significant government intervention in family matters regarding gender. Some activists even advocate for prosecuting former Trump officials and restructuring fundamental judicial structures. Acts of civil disobedience, such as Antifa’s assaults on federal properties, illustrate the position of radicals who wield genuine influence.
What’s evident is that progressives recognize a reality that many conservatives struggle to accept: America is home to diverse moral communities existing within the same physical space.
Factors like mass immigration, ideological entrenchment, and the polarization of institutions have chipped away at the foundational beliefs that once made bipartisan compromise achievable. Our most profound disagreements extend beyond government size or fiscal policy; they involve conflicting views on family, justice, citizenship, equality, religion, and even the essence of humanity.
Such divisions are not entirely new. Shays’ Rebellion was quelled through force. The Civil War resolved secession violence on an unprecedented scale. Federal troops were deployed to enforce school integration in Little Rock. While these incidents significantly differ in context and ethical implications, they share a common truth: political systems ultimately enforce certain answers while rejecting others. Two incompatible legal frameworks cannot coexist on the same issue indefinitely.
Today, we find ourselves much closer to the situation in Little Rock than to the events of Gettysburg, which should prompt conservatives to abandon the fantasy of an impending civil war. However, it’s equally crucial to stop pretending that all conflicts can merely be reduced to policy discussions. A decade ago, many on the right began questioning whether conservatives “understood the times.” A good portion still seems not to. Figures like Piker exemplify the reality that the opposing side appears more aware of what’s at stake.
The current radical left shouldn’t be regarded as just another coalition with which conservatives exchange power while maintaining the status quo. Elections will determine control over institutions that could reshape America for years to come. Ultimately, battles will be won and lost, with the outcome profoundly impacting the political landscape.
Conservatives didn’t create the current state of existential politics, nor can they simply wish it away to return to normalcy. Ignoring this reality ensures that future generations inherit a society they may not recognize. While conservatives are not expected to adopt a nihilistic outlook, they must grasp the gravity of the situation before deciding on their approach in this struggle. Time is slipping away.
