Listen To This Story

House Democrats on Friday handed Republicans a political gift when fewer than half of them voted for a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk and condemning his murder. It’s a baffling unforced error that will allow the GOP to cast Democrats as a party of radicals who are fomenting political violence. 

First of all, the measure has no practical effect, and it was always going to pass with bipartisan support. It’s simply a declaration praising Kirk and saying that political violence is bad. If it had been passed unanimously, people would have forgotten it within days. 

Now, however, after 58 Democrats opposed the resolution (most of whom were members of the Congressional Black Caucus), 38 voted present, and 22 didn’t vote at all, it will become “a thing.” 

And rightfully so, because, unexpectedly, the measure wasn’t even overly objectionable.

Yes, it is certainly more partisan than the resolution that passed the House unanimously after a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband were killed earlier this year, but, when we read the resolution for the first time, we were surprised not to find references to the “rise of left-wing extremism” or some other GOP talking point.

It was also less political than an alternative that Democrats pitched, which includes a reference to the “violent mob” that attacked Congress on January 6. Surely, the authors of that measure must have known that, while they are correct, no GOP lawmaker was going to vote for that, which was the whole point of including it. 

Republicans and Democrats routinely try to make each other take tough votes for political gain.

Democrats, for example, in recent weeks have been forcing GOP lawmakers to oppose measures that would compel the Trump administration to release more documents related to the president’s former pal Jeffrey Epstein. 

For them, it’s a win-win situation. Either the information is made available or they can hammer Republicans for standing in the way of transparency.

In that regard, the Kirk measure was fairly benign. 

Sure, it includes some language that would irk Democrats because they feel that it doesn’t accurately reflect who the activist was and what he did. 

For example, the measure praises him for “engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums” and “always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.” 

There are plenty of Democrats who will disagree with that characterization, or that Kirk “personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans.” 

One of them is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who was perhaps the most prominent Democrat to oppose the resolution. 

Prior to the vote, she called Kirk’s assassination a “horrific and vile” act of political violence but criticized GOP leaders for not choosing a bipartisan measure that condemned the murder. 

Instead, she said, they chose a resolution that “brings great pain” to Americans who suffered from segregation. 

“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it,’” Ocasio-Cortez said. “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans — far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.”

But this is one of those cases where “being right” or taking a principled position doesn’t matter because of how this vote will be spun.

Ocasio-Cortez must have known that Republicans will make it sound as though she and her Democratic colleagues refuse to condemn political violence. 

She could have held the same speech and then declared that she would vote for the measure anyway because it is important to stand united against violence even if she disagreed with Kirk or how he is portrayed.

Again, this is just a resolution and passing it has no consequences. 

And the part of the measure dealing with the condemnation of political violence is pretty straightforward.

Calling the assassination a “heinous act,” the resolution says it serves as a “sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society.”

Who is going to disagree with that? 

Or that acts of political violence are “antithetical to the principles of a free republic,” and undermine “the very fabric of our constitutional democracy and chills the free exchange of ideas essential to a healthy civic society”? 

Well, Democrats put themselves into the uncomfortable position of appearing that they oppose those statements, and Republicans were quick to pounce on that. 

“Fifty-eight Democrats voted against a resolution that honored Charlie Kirk’s life, condemned political violence, and called for respectful debate,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA). “Disgraceful.”

In a world ruled by soundbites and headlines, that is going to be the main takeaway, which makes this an unforced error that plays into the hands of the Trump administration, which is using the assassination as a reason for cracking down on free speech and progressive groups.

In his Navigating the Insanity columns, Klaus Marre provides the kind of hard-hitting, thought-provoking, and often humorous analysis you won’t find anywhere else.