When was the last time being on the right side of history meant celebrating the assassination of a conservative activist?
When did it mean publicly cheering murder and encouraging division?
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic shooting at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, where the Turning Point USA founder was fatally wounded while speaking to students, reactions have poured in from all sides. Some mourned the loss of a vocal advocate for conservative values, while others disturbingly expressed glee or justification for the act. Kirk, known for his campus debates and promotion of free speech, became a target in an era of heightened political tension. How does celebrating such violence align with moral superiority?
A pattern emerges when examining historical movements whose participants were certain about being on the right side of history. This phrase often serves as a rhetorical tool to claim moral superiority without deeper justification. Throughout history, many groups convinced of their righteousness are remembered for their crimes.
The Spanish Inquisition believed they were saving souls by torturing heretics. Slavery supporters cited religious texts and pseudoscience to prove racial hierarchy, insisting history would vindicate their system. Early 20th-century eugenics advocates, including prominent intellectuals, argued that sterilizing the “unfit” would improve humanity. Communist regimes under Stalin and Mao, responsible for tens of millions of deaths, were certain they were forging utopia. All proclaimed their actions as inevitable progress, yet posterity judges them harshly.
This pattern persists today. Following Kirk’s assassination, social media erupted with posts hailing the shooter as a hero or suggesting Kirk’s rhetoric invited violence. Such responses echo historical dehumanization, where opponents were labeled threats to justify elimination. Kirk’s work challenging leftist dominance on campuses made him a lightning rod. But does disagreement warrant death?
Declaring oneself on history’s right side signals unwillingness to engage with counterarguments or consider complexity. It leads to dehumanizing opponents and justifying harm for supposedly righteous ends.
The phrase reflects a misunderstanding of how history works. History isn’t a straight line of moral progress with clear right and wrong sides. It’s a complex interplay of competing ideas and consequences that becomes clear only in retrospect.
Claiming to be on history’s right side before events unfold has historically been one of the most obvious signs that one is not.
In Kirk’s case, the rush to frame his death as a blow against extremism ignores broader implications for free expression. Universities, meant to be debate bastions, now grapple with security failures that allowed this tragedy. President Donald Trump’s response, blaming radical left political violence and posthumously awarding Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, highlights the deepening divide. Yet those celebrating the act overlook that violence begets more violence, eroding democracy’s fabric.
Why has this phrase been so popular throughout history? What’s gained by feigning prescience? If present-day actions could be as unquestioned as retrospect, it becomes easier to convince the masses that their best interests are served. It also becomes easier to convince them that contrarians have the worst intentions.
Though unethical, brainwashing the masses to believe we’re on history’s right side is the most efficient approach to garnering support. If we were indeed on the right side, we wouldn’t have to try so hard to convince others.
Media coverage has varied widely. Some outlets focused on the manhunt and the FBI’s suspect images, while others decried the incident as left-wing aggression escalation. Incidents like a teacher being placed on leave for insensitive comments about Kirk’s death underscore toxic discourse. Even international outlets reported on rising U.S. political violence.
Given the historical context, those who weaponize cancel culture and character assassination against dissent may not be on history’s right side, especially if they presume their position as given, like communists, eugenicists, enslavers, and warmongers of the past. The mental gymnastics employed to justify harm toward dissent, calling for violence in the name of peace, echo historical indoctrination.
Moral progress comes from acknowledging complexity and remaining open to change, not overconfidence in righteousness. Admirable historical figures expressed doubt and wrestled with difficult questions rather than claiming certainty. Kirk himself emphasized dialogue over destruction.
Thus, it’s difficult to understand how justifying Kirk’s assassination and celebrating harm toward those with differing views equates to being on history’s right side. In a nation built on free speech, such justifications risk leading us down a path history has repeatedly condemned. True progress demands empathy, not elimination. Let us respond not with violence or vitriol, but with our voices and our votes. Let us reflect before history judges us all.
