Charlie

I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was until today, but my news feed brought me up to speed with three notices in pretty short order:

• First Notice– Charlie Kirk was a young advocate of conservative ideologies on a national tour when he was shot in the middle of an event in Utah
• Third Notice—Charlie Kirk died from his wounds

I had just started working at a new school where the front door was 20 feet from a main road—and then Sandy Hook happened.  This sadly frequent exposure to these events makes me all too aware of the frustrations we experience, especially among those who feel “thoughts and prayers” aren’t a real solution.

But then, sandwiched in between those two notices:

• Second notice—an acquaintance on Facebook posted the then breaking story on Facebook, adding the comment “His organization was against gun control.  Karma.”

There is more than enough news coming from our national leaders to cause concern, especially when the leaders themselves use language to describe a new initiative in a way that suggests it’s nothing short of a power grab.  It’s easy to understand why underserved populations are genuinely concerned, not just for the future, but for their future. As the father of two children born in a different country, I sometimes share these concerns for them.

And yet, there are three things to consider.

• There was a president who persuaded Congress to pass a law making it illegal for anyone to say something negative about the government.  Who was this treasonous scoundrel?  Founding Father John Adams.

There was a president who felt the Supreme Court was interfering with his plans for the country, so he asked Congress to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court, so he could get his way.  The culprit behind this proposed power grab?  Franklin Roosevelt.

This is not to say all ideas currently being floated by this administration are harmless, since constitutional scholars have suggested otherwise.  But part of what’s going on is what happens when the other side wins.  As Leo McGarry once said on The West Wing, when the other side loses, they have to sit down for four years.

• Many of these efforts are getting pushback from the courts, a reminder of the wisdom of the Constitution to have judges appointed for life, exempt from the political whims of the day.  This isn’t perfect—take a look at the Dred Scott case or Plessey v Ferguson—but it is putting the brakes on more power pulls that we know.

• Leo McGarry was kind of wrong.  The losing side doesn’t have to sit down—in fact, they shouldn’t.  They should fight for their version of right, protect the Constitution as they see fit, and articulate their position so the next election might have a different result.

But they should do all these things in a way that, once they win, we still have a civil country to live in.

As for the folks out there who heard the news about Charlie Kirk and said something at least as bad, if not worse, than “Karma”.

Is that what you would have said to the family of a Sandy Hook student?

Is that what you would have said if someone had shot John Adams or FDR, both of whom were feeding the same beast of public opinion that exists today?

Because Charlie Kirk, from what I can tell, wasn’t in a position to change the Constitution. He was exercising his—and your—right to free speech.

And, he has a family.

That matters in the America I know.

Victim

Too young
Too soon
Too wrong.
Now where?