My Take on the Kirk Assassination Aftermath

The purpose of political debate is to synthesize ideas and to clarify opposing viewpoints so that voters can make informed choices at the ballot box; ultimately, so that violence is never a substitute for the will of a law-abiding citizenry.

It is entirely appropriate to contest Charlie Kirk's ideas, even in the immediate aftermath of his assassination. That's fair game, and criticism of Kirk's ideas, in turn, must be open to scrutiny.

But it is entirely inappropriate to celebrate the murder of someone who was merely engaged in peaceful political debate.

Public employees obtain their positions through a political process that is based on open debate. Such open debate is a healthy substitute for violence. Taxpayers cannot afford to subsidize the careers of those who advocate violence in lieu of political debate; such advocacy, if successful, would result in the destruction of our political institutions and lead to Hobbesian chaos. It is in the national interest for public employees to be fired when their words and actions celebrate political violence that, when allowed to continue, would bring our political process to an end.