Why the Assassination of Charlie Kirk has Made Me Lean More Left, Not Right: A Centrist View

I’ve gone back and forth on whether I should even write this. Part of me thinks it’s safer to stay quiet, to avoid the inevitable backlash that comes from speaking plainly in today’s political climate. Especially when I've already got threats made to me from the right BEFORE any of this has ever happened. But the other part of me knows that silence, especially in moments like this, only allows hypocrisy to go unchallenged.

So here it is. My unfiltered take.

Living in the Middle

I've always lived in the middle ground. There are policies from both the left and the right that I support, and policies from both sides that I think are misguided. I've never been comfortable with the tribalism of political identity.

I also can't stand when people tow the party line, regardless of the harm it can cause. If you see a policy you disagree with, you need to be able to speak out about it, even if it's from within your own party. You also need to be able to admit when you're wrong. Unfortunately, not many people do.

Because of this, I've seen what both sides are capable of. I have had people from both ends of the spectrum call me names, call for threats against me, or try to twist my words. I know that when you try to correct someone who spreads misinformation, regardless of party, they hurl insults.

The Reaction That Changed Things

With all that said, watching the reaction to this tragedy has made me step back and re-evaluate some stuff. The right's response didn't just expose double standards; it revealed something darker. A movement that has long excused, minimised, or even romanticised violence when it served their ends now recoils only when the blade cuts them.

That's not a strength. That's not a principle. That's cowardice.

I've always been consistent and clear that violence isn't a solution, a debate tactic, or a shortcut to change. My stance has always been, and will continue to remain, that it corrodes community and destroys lives. It has no place in a civilised community. I have the receipts and post history to prove this. I've tried to denounce violence every chance I got. Not just in moments of crisis. That's the difference between me and you.

Hypocrisy on Display

I'm not saying you yourself have done these things, or said hurtful stuff, or called for violence. But when your leaders are, and you are either actively ignoring it, not calling it out, defending it, or even deflecting. You're worst. Because you're a hypocrite who doesn't actually believe in the stuff you're preaching.

If you do call it out, you only do so when it hits your side. You virtue signal. Honestly, it's more disgusting than the people who don't. The right, which for years has flirted with violent rhetoric, winked at armed intimidation, and shrugged off political violence when it wasn’t their people bleeding, is suddenly clutching pearls. Now, they posture as moral arbiters, demanding outrage and unity in condemnation. The irony is impossible to ignore.

You aren’t against violence, you’re against losing to it

And just as striking was how quick many on the right were to blame this incident on the left, before we even knew anything about it. No facts, no evidence, just immediate finger-pointing. That reflex to politicise tragedy says more about their priorities than it does about the truth.

I've had people comment and message me about some of my very own posts that I have shared in the past denouncing violence. There wasn't anything going on at that time. There were no big headlines. I was simply denouncing it. Telling people violence isn't an answer. The response I got from conservatives, and I quote: violence is “warranted”, “required”, even “a tool for change”. I was told “violence is needed” and “almost always required”. So don't go telling me you're only now gunning for violence because the other side started it.

The Left's Response

I’ve seen some individuals on the left celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death. Let me be clear: I do not support celebrating the death of any individual. That reaction is cruel, wrong, and beneath the values of a civilised society.

But we also need to be honest: not everyone accused of “celebrating” is actually celebrating. Some are simply not mourning — and there’s a difference. Choosing not to grieve a public figure you strongly opposed is not the same as cheering their death. Refusing to mourn isn’t celebration; it’s distance.

Here’s the distinction that matters: just as the right has extremists, the left does too. The handful of people truly celebrating are outliers, individuals acting on their own. They do not represent the majority. And I can already hear the rebuttal: “But Jordan, aren’t you being hypocritical? Didn’t you just call out individuals on the right?”

The difference is leadership. On the left, leaders have categorically condemned this violence clearly and consistently. On the right, too often leaders don’t condemn violence when it’s directed at their opponents. Sometimes, they’re the ones openly inciting it.

That’s not a fringe issue, that’s a leadership issue. When leaders are the ones fanning the flames, that stain doesn’t just sit on a few individuals. It brands the party itself.

My Final Thoughts

It's okay to change your stance. It's okay to change your view. That's not "flip-flopping". That's learning. That's informing yourself.

And at this moment, I've learned something about the right: They are not the principled defenders of law and order they claim to be. Their outrage is conditional. Their morality is situational.

That realisation has made me question where I stand. It hasn’t turned me into a partisan, but it has moved me further away from the right than I’ve ever been. And while I’m not suddenly waving anyone’s flag, I can no longer pretend not to see who has been normalising violence all along.