There’s an old line often hauled out by comedians when a certain kind of joke bombs. The joke might be about Lincoln’s assassination or the sinking of the Titanic. If it doesn’t get a laugh, the comedian waits a beat and asks, “Too soon?”
For the ghouls who get their kicks trash-talking on social media, it apparently wasn’t too soon to joke about the murder of Charlie Kirk — or to even to celebrate it.
One post read: “LOL SOMEONE SHOT CHARLIE KIRK.” Another said: “Hope the bullet’s okay after touching Charlie Kirk.” There were thousands of these.
The good news is that most Americans aren’t so pathetic. So for reasonable Americans — on both the right and the left — this question: Is it too soon to ask something fundamental about what Kirk was doing during his time on the political stage — specifically about his much-publicized willingness to debate young people on college campuses with wildly different views. “Prove me wrong” was his calling card.
Is it too soon to ask: Was Charlie Kirk humble enough to keep an open mind and actually allow his critics — at least some of the more thoughtful ones — to prove him wrong? Did he ever say something as simple as, “Gee, I never thought of it that way — you may be right”?
After all, this wasn’t a man with standard-issue conservative beliefs. Kirk held opinions that raised eyebrows even among many on the right. A few examples: He cited the Bible to oppose gay and transgender issues, took aim at the separation of church and state, and called Martin Luther King, Jr. an “awful” person.
Despite his support for Israel, he had accused Jews of controlling “not just the colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.” And he tried to link 9/11 to a Muslim candidate for mayor of New York, calling him the face of a “pernicious force” poised to capture City Hall.
These aren’t mild disagreements. These are deeply entrenched beliefs. So, was Kirk not all that different from so many ideologies on the right (and the left)? Was he simply more genial, more seemingly open-minded? Did his civil demeanor camouflage something inconvenient — that while he was willing to listen to his critics, nothing they said could shake him from even his most controversial beliefs?
In fairness, I am not part of Kirk’s fan base. I’m a lot older than his typical follower, and I only know what I see in the media. But if anyone out there has evidence that he ever reconsidered an especially provocative position after hearing from the other side, they’re being awfully quiet about it. Maybe, as the comedians say, it’s just too soon.
Now, a few words about President Trump.
The day after Kirk was murdered, Trump was asked on Fox News how we fix this country. A serious moment, a solemn occasion — a perfect opportunity to be, well, presidential, and turn down the temperature, a chance to say something that might actually bring people together.
Instead, he did what he so often does — he threw gasoline on the fire.
“I tell you something that is going to get me in trouble: I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “Radicals on the right are radical because they don’t want to see crime.”
He then proceeded to point fingers at the left.
“Radicals on the left are the problem and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy,” Trump said. “They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone, open borders. Worst thing that happened to this country.” He has utterly ignored attacks on leftist or centrist politicians by right-wing assailants. And he certainly made no effort — none — to use this tragedy to call for unity.
A great president is not just the commander-in-chief. He is also the healer-in-chief. Someone close to Trump needs to remind him of that — assuming, of course, he’d even listen.
We’re already hearing that Kirk’s assassination might be a turning point — a chance to reset, to finally stop demonizing each other and start respecting opposing views. Sounds noble. Sounds overdue. But it also sounds unlikely.
Because let’s face it: Division is big business in America. Social media and a lot of cable news thrive on outrage. Clicks, ratings, ad dollars — they all depend on keeping us angry and at each other’s throats. Unity doesn’t trend. Civility doesn’t sell.
Just hours after Kirk was killed, I had a conversation with a neighbor — a progressive woman with two college degrees. She couldn’t wait to pull out her phone and read me something Kirk had once said: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
I asked if she agreed that, despite that quote, his murder was inexcusable. She said yes. But her barely concealed smile — maybe “smirk” is a better word — told a different story, something along the lines of. “He had it coming.”
So is this the moment of change Americans keep hoping for? Was this a tragedy so profound that it cuts through the noise and brings us back to our shared humanity?
I hope I’m wrong, but as I say I think it’s too soon for anything important to actually change. The rage that dominated our politics before Kirk was gunned down is still with us. He’s dead. The fear and loathing of those who think differently than we do is still very much alive.
Bernard Goldberg (@BernardGoldberg) is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page.
