A resolution to honor conservative activist Charlie Kirk and condemn his assassination has been the subject of frenzied talk among House Democrats this week as some lawmakers grapple with how to vote on it.What do Democrats think? That swing voters will reject certain Democrats in November 2026 based on how other Democrats voted in September 2025 on a purely symbolic resolution? Do they really believe Kirk will still be one of America's main topics of conversation fourteen months from now? And do they realize that Kirk wasn't a universally admired person?
Why it matters: Kirk was not beloved by Democrats, but some in the party fear that anything short of a unanimous vote for the resolution could be a messaging coup for Republicans.
"People are worried that we're being totally set up," one House Democrat told Axios on the condition of anonymity....
Shortly after Kirk's death, questions about Kirk were included in the weekly survey conducted by The Economist and YouGov. Only 24% of respondents said they were "very familiar" with Kirk; an additional 32% said they were "somewhat familiar" with him. Only 35% of respondents had a favorable opinion of him, while 36% had an unfavorable opinion. Among moderates, those favorable/unfavorable numbers were 26%/38%; among independents, they were 27%/37%. (Key numbers are here; the full survey is here.)
Charlie Kirk was not universally admired.
To their credit, House Democrats aren't demanding a unanimous yes vote, Axios reports -- and one Democrat says she'll vote "no."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in Democrats' closed-door caucus meeting Thursday morning that leadership will vote for the resolution....Some objectors say they would have been comfortable voting for the resolution that passed unanimously in the Senate this week. That resolution, sponsored by Utah senator Mike Lee, was shorter and milder. (The text is here.)
His leadership team is not whipping the resolution, however, leaving lawmakers to decide for themselves how they plan to vote....
At least one House Democrat, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), is planning to vote against the resolution, telling Axios she is "not sure what is honorable" about many of Kirk's past statements.
Asked about concerns of GOP backlash, Crockett said she lives "under their heinous threats every single day" and suggested Democrats should not be like Republicans who have "abdicated their duties out of fear."
Several more said they are undecided, including Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas). Others said they plan to vote "present."
If I were a senator, I would have had problems with the assertion that Kirk had a "commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people of the United States, regardless of political affiliation." But the Senate bill is not as partisan as the House resolution (text here), which says, among other things, that Kirk was "always seeking to elevate truth" (he argued that the 2020 presidential election was stolen) and that he "personified the values of the First Amendment ... and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans" (he said vile things about trans people and Black people, especially Black women, among other "fellow Americans").
I hope those who plan to vote "no" will be accorded the opportunity to speak, and will use that opportunity to read Kirk's own words into the Congressional Record, including some of the less well known statements recently unearthed by Ta-Nehisi Coates:
The American way of life was “Christendom,” Kirk claimed, and Islam—“the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America”—was antithetical to that....Charlie Kirk was not, as the House resolution states, a person who "worked tirelessly to promote unity." On his podcast and his social media, he did not display a "commitment to civil discussion."
Kirk habitually railed against “Black crime,” claiming that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.” ... Haiti was, by Kirk’s lights, a country “infested with demonic voodoo,” whose migrants were “raping your women and hunting you down at night.” These Haitians, as well as undocumented immigrants from other countries, were “having a field day,” per Kirk, and “coming for your daughter next.” The only hope was Donald Trump, who had to prevail, lest Haitians “become your masters.” ...
“Jewish donors,” Kirk claimed, were “the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits.” Indeed, “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
Democrats can say this without jeopardizing their electoral chances. They can say that Kirk was an unashamed partisan who proudly insulted and offended the people he didn't like, and he had an absolute First Amendment right to do so, but we should not remember him in death as a unifier and a healer.
And we should remember that the president Kirk worked so hard to re-elect is in the process of bringing down the wrath of the United States government on other public figures who say rude things, in this case rude things the president doesn't like. At a time when the Republican Party is arguing that cancel culture is a good thing when conservatives are doing the canceling, Democrats are under no obligation to praise a man who maintained a target list of professors he hoped to remove from their jobs for speech he didn't like.
But just as Democrats bafflingly believe that they'll doom themselves electorally if they fail to vote for at least some of a Republican president's most irresponsible and unqualified nominees, Democrats apparently fret over the consequences of a "no" or "present" vote on this resolution. They shouldn't worry. The public doesn't worship Kirk the way Republicans do. And Election Day is a long way away.
*****
UPDATE: The resolution passed, but 58 Democrats voted "no" and 38 voted "present." Good for them. An additional 22 did not vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment