Your Feedback September 17, 2025September 17, 2025 Lots of it. Unanimous that Charlie Kirk’s murder was terrible, should never have happened; political violence has no place in America. That’s key. And still there was a lot more to say, which I’ll get to in a minute. But first . . . ‘Shaken’ historian issues dire warning: ‘Americans have 400 days to save their democracy’, which reads in small part: Hysterical hyperbole? I would love to think so. But during seven weeks in the US this summer, I was shaken every day by the speed and executive brutality of President Trump’s assault on what had seemed settled norms of US democracy and by the desperate weakness of resistance to that assault. That’s why all [small “d”] democrats, irrespective of party or ideology, must hope the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives in midterm elections on 3 November 2026. Not because of the Democrats’ policies, which are a muddle, or their current leadership, which is a mess, but simply because US democracy needs Congress, the principal check on presidential power envisaged in the US constitution, to start doing its job again. That will not happen so long as the Republicans, dominated and intimidated by Trump, control both houses. In response to which Stephen P. writes: I’m a pessimist, so feel free to ignore my rants, but anyone taking an overall view “from 30 thousand feet” over all the turmoil, here and abroad, would come to the same conclusion, unless they are just being wishfully ignorant. Trump and his followers and supporters have adopted the same philosophy of governance as Putin, Xi, Bibi, Erdogan, Kim….ignore the guardrails of democracy and international laws and just push, push, push to gain and hold control, and get everything they want. No amount of institutional tsk-tsk-tsking will shame them, no courts of law have the balls to lock them up, so they gain, gain gain and we lose lose lose…day by day. The world loses a little bit more. Modern civilization, as we thought we’d formed it over the last two centuries, slips away as those who believe that might makes right gain power. 400 days? Hmmm. Seems “they” are working on a shorter time schedule. Join Indivisible! Fund the opposition party! And now . . . Alba G.: Charlie Kirk may have been more mellow in private, but he had a public brand that was unambiguously the opposite of what your friend David Blumberg alleges. This is not unique: see Tucker Carlson, Rupert Murdoch, Laura Ingraham, et al. To gloss him over because he is dead is a disservice to truth. I am happy that there are many voices pointing out what a horrible tragedy his death is. But at the same time, I am extremely disappointed with the Ezra Kleins and Gavin Newsoms saying that he was such a great man. Come on, now. Parker Molloy: We Can Condemn Murder Without Rewriting History Let me be absolutely clear: Charlie Kirk should be alive. His murder was horrific and wrong. Political violence poisons democracy. His kids deserve to have their father. All of that is true. And if there’s one thing you take away from this post, I hope it’s that. Also true: Charlie Kirk dedicated his adult life to making people like me disappear from public life. He called for us to be purged from society. He said we should be handled “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s” — meaning lobotomies, shock therapy, and institutionalization. He built an empire on hatred and left behind a legacy of cruelty. Both things can be true. We can condemn his murder without pretending he was something he wasn’t. We can mourn the violence without erasing what he advocated for. We can say political assassination is wrong without declaring that everyone who refuses to perform grief is a terrorist sympathizer who deserves to lose their job. Erich A.: After I saw your reader’s positive comments, a friend sent me this. Hard to reconcile the two. → Hard indeed! Watch. Two minutes. Ta-Nehisi Coates in Vanity Fair: By ignoring the rhetoric and actions of the Turning Point USA founder, pundits and politicians are sanitizing his legacy. What are we to make of a man who called for the execution of the American president, and then was executed himself? Worth reading in full! Jim T: Worst ever from you. Kirk’s comments regarding black women alone prove him a racist. His comment that several deaths a year is a fair price to pay for gun ownership. Etc. How could you? Terrible, terrible, terrible. → Thanks, Jim. I do think David’s generous assessment of his late friend was myopic. I didn’t post it because I agree Charlie Kirk was a good guy. I posted it because I thought David’s tone — gracious and civil — was something all too often lacking. Here’s the way I look at it: People should be allowed to believe that 40,000 vehicular deaths each year are the horrible but (at least for now) largely necessary price we pay for being able to drive. And I agree with them. Similarly, they should be allowed to believe — and say — that nearly as many deaths each year from our insanely loose gun laws are a necessary price to pay for the freedom to own guns. I vehemently disagree . . . just as I disagree with people who believe I am an abomination before God . . . but I don’t think the people who believe — and say — those things are horrible people. (Or that they’re “scum” or “vermin,” to borrow the president’s rhetoric.) I think they’ve been led astray. It’s the people doing the leading, if they know better, as surely some must . . . or if they’re doing it in lucrative service to the gun lobby (say) . . . who are horrible people. If all those with whom we disagree were as open to civil discussion as my friend David, I think we could have a lot more than 400 days of democracy ahead of us.