That was Charlie Kirk’s challenge on campuses across this country and abroad. Those words were emblazoned on the tents where he invited interlocutors, friendly and unfriendly, to approach the microphone to debate him on political, religious, and cultural topics. He would easily show that, and how, those three “fields” overlapped.
He was a political activist, but before that, by his account, he was a sinner saved by grace who would not shirk his responsibility to sanctify the Lord in his heart before, with gentleness and respect, giving a reason for the hope that was in him in the public square (1 Peter 3:15).
For over fifty years, I’ve weighed the pros and cons of philosophical and theological arguments, always eager (and often anxious) to learn what could be said against my position. But could I have done what Charlie did? At this stage, it is clear the answer is no. I write blog posts and books, but compared to Charlie, I’ve always “played it safe.”
I remember Charlie’s first appearance on Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File on Fox News about a dozen years ago and then followed his career with some, but not great, interest. The recruitment of young people to the conservative cause, however important, was for me a side-show. Frankly, and this says more about him than me, if he hadn’t been murdered yesterday I wouldn’t be writing about him today.
But it was not until yesterday that I realized how important his mission of preparing tomorrow’s leaders is and how much he accomplished to that end, a legacy that millions will build on. I find it surreal that I’m following the aftermath of his assassination on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, when he was a lad of eight years.
I only voted for Trump; Kirk played an indispensable role in persuading millions of younger voters to do likewise. From that perspective, my differences with Charlie over, say, apologetical methodology are neither here nor there. He was a tremendous force for the good of order we call Western Civilization. Read William Kirkpatrick’s “The Civilizational Struggle That No One Talks About,” published a few weeks ago, and tell me America doesn’t need an army of Charlie Kirks. And then marvel at the how far he went in raising such an army.
He was as productive as he was creative and courageous; the more I learn about him, the more impressed I am. (Not that impressing me is a criterion of anything important.)
The Left doesn’t have a Donald Trump but, even worse for them, they don’t have a Charlie Kirk, whose legacy is deep bench of future leaders of a movement which does not depend upon the fortunes of one person. When a young person would ask him, “Who’s the next Charlie Kirk?,” his answer was always, “You are the next Charlie Kirk.”
I look forward to learning more about a man whom, I’m ashamed to admit, I underestimated. My poor words cannot compete with the encomia pouring in from those who knew this husband and father and autodidact who commanded every stage he strode upon and whose life’s work I’m sure I’m benefiting from in ways I cannot yet see. So I’ll stop. (Better late than never.)
Treat yourself to his encounters with the human refuse of our miseducational system on YouTube.com. Read his 2024 book, You’ll be the better for it.
Prove me wrong.
The history of the Industrial Revolution—how feudalism’s serfs became capitalism’s propertyless proletarians—does not make for pleasant reading. It was not, however, the unrelieved tragedy of Marxist propaganda. On the contrary. This Labor Day, I reproduce the 21st chapter of my 