The national conversation this week is about the death of Charlie Kirk.
And it’s made me realize I have a blind spot when it comes to understanding the current American cultural landscape.
I’m going to be honest — I had to double-check how to spell his name. I’d heard of him… barely.
So you can imagine my surprise when, after his death, a loud portion of Americans seemed to lose their minds.
The screenshots and sound bites were telling:
“Charlie Kirk’s a casualty of war. We’re at war in this country. We are.” — Steve Bannon
“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie… He was loved and admired by ALL…” — Donald Trump
I found myself asking, Why is this guy I’ve barely heard of getting this kind of attention?
So I looked into him.
Charlie Kirk ran an organization called Turning Point USA and was known for aggressively defending pro-gun, pro-Trump, and often inflammatory positions. A lot of what I read wasn’t surprising — but the reaction to his death told me more than his resume ever could.
It told me that the response was less about him as a person and more about what he represented.
He was a symbol for an agenda. And symbols are useful — especially when you're trying to mobilize a group through fear, loyalty, or rage.
The more I read, the more it became clear: he helped popularize a rhetorical style that glorifies conflict, encourages moral panic, and flatters people into thinking they’re the only ones who “see things clearly.”
It’s a classic tactic.
You tell people they’re part of a special group.
You convince them they’re being attacked.
And then you offer them a simple, emotional answer to a complex, uncomfortable world.
The name for this is grievance politics. And it’s powerful because it feels good when you’re scared or angry, and you are given an unambiguous enemy to rally against.
It creates a kind of emotional loyalty that’s hard to shake. The words reinforce an identity that becomes ego-driven.
Which, as a side note, is why it’s so hard to have rational conversations with people who these movements have taken in. They struggle to even entertain the possibility that something they believe could be wrong, because to do so would call into question their core identity.
So when someone like Kirk dies, what people are mourning isn’t just the man — it’s the part of their identity that they forfitted to his charisma.
That’s why I think this matters.
Not because of Charlie Kirk, but because of what his reaction reveals about our communication landscape.
There’s a deep hunger right now to belong, to be right, and to be righteously angry.
That’s dangerous territory if no one’s paying attention to how the story is being told.
And, friends, look around. Are people paying attention?
Takeaway
Engage in conversation if and when you are able.
Pay attention to the structure of the message, not just the tone. Who's being cast as the hero, the villain, and the victim? What emotions are being triggered? What part of you is being rewarded for agreeing?
Those questions help you stay rooted when the conversation makes you question your sanity.
And if you need a sanity check, or a head start fact-checking a claim, try out the tool that I’m building - MyTruthChecker.com
I’m building it as a tool to help people have conversations without getting drawn into a mirror-maze of half-truths, spin, and emotional manipulation.
When it’s read, I’ll start charging a small fee to cover my costs to run it, but for now, it’s completely free for anyone to try. If you use it, let me know what you think!
Talk soon
-Austin