Selective Outrage

And American Gun Violence

Dear friends,

A few weeks ago, Taylor Swift got engaged. You may have heard. Many people took to the internet to express their joy that one of the most successful, powerful, and talented musicians of all time appears to have found her true love.

Charlie Kirk, whom I had never heard of, responded to the news by saying: “Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

The misogyny and antiquated worldview of this man shocked and annoyed me at the time. It reminded me of how I felt getting married in the mid-90s, wondering if my own identity would be subsumed by my husband’s. Apparently, we have made little progress since then.

Now, the man who said this is dead. He’s dead like the two children who were shot at school in Minneapolis on the same day. He’s dead like Melissa Hortman and her husband and their dog—shot in the middle of the night in their own homes in tragic acts of political violence carried out at the hands of a right-wing violent extremist.

Trump’s response to these earlier horrific political murders was to insult Governor Walz and say that calling him would be a “waste of time.” Flags were not flown at half-mast. Trump did not attend the funeral. Utah Senator Mike Lee ® spread malicious lies that their killer, Vance Bolter was a “Marxist” (he is not).

So, in the wake of Kirk’s death, the disproportionate, selective outrage on the right should not be surprising, but I find it remarkable all the same. As conservatives howl about “radical left” violence and threaten Civil War, they hold vigils while Trump threatens retribution for anyone not in sufficient mourning. When a CBS reporter asked if he should have lowered the flag for the Hortmans, Trump said, “I’m not familiar. The who?” Once he remembered who they meant, he said that Walz “had not asked me to.” Well, perhaps if he’d called Walz, it would have come up.

Am I sad Kirk is dead? I’m sad 46,728 Americans were killed because of gun violence in 2023 and we’re on a similar trajectory this year, yes. I’m sad that political violence is increasing.

But not all those who fall are equally innocent, and I am reserving the greater share of my grief for school children who simply went to school last week and never came home. I grieve for the Hortman children who lost BOTH parents because one of their parents dared serve in a public position. And I’m sorry they then had to listen to their President callously dismiss the event with little commentary beyond partisan blame. I want to live in a peaceful, loving country where no one has to worry about their safety as they speak out publicly, even if I disagree with what they are saying.

But in death, a public figure’s words are not erased. Often, their words are amplified. Much of Kirk’s rhetoric was actively harmful to women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color. That is an undeniable part of his legacy. These are not positions that represent a simple difference of opinion. They are positions that deepen and even exploit pre-existing wounds and harm people already disproportionately burdened. Kirk engaged in rhetoric that increased divisions, rather than healed them. In my opinion, there is nothing admirable or noteworthy about this.

So yes, as we consider what our response will be to the more than 40,000 Americans who will die this year by gun violence—a number that now surpasses the rate of death by automobile accident—it’s fair to mourn the imperfect and flawed people slain alongside the innocent, but let’s keep it in perspective.

More than anything, it is the violence endemic to our society that we must grapple with and mourn.

Love,

Marianne