Charlie Kirk’s death has exposed the bigotry of the ‘Be Kind’ brigade

Last week, I bumped into an old acquaintance, a man who proudly calls himself an ‘old lefty’. I knew him well once, well enough to remember that he was never especially kind, never particularly loyal, and not exactly a model brother or friend. But none of that seemed to matter, because he believed he carried the ultimate moral insurance policy: he was on the left.

For too many people, politics has become a kind of secular baptism, a ritual washing away of sins. You can be careless with those closest to you, even cruel, and still believe yourself virtuous. All it takes is spending a Saturday on X hurling righteous abuse at ‘right-wing bigots’ and, hey presto, you’re absolved.

That smug worldview might look harmless when it is just an old pal excusing his shabby behaviour. But since last week, we have witnessed the same mentality on the global stage, after American conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated for his political beliefs.

And what was the response from the ‘Be Kind’ brigade? Not outrage. Not grief. Not even the faintest curiosity about how the alleged gunman could come to find Kirk’s conservative and Christian beliefs so dangerous that he believed those who advocated for them in public needed to be shot.

No, the reflex instead was tribal. The only question many cared about was: ‘Which side was he on?’

A more grotesque response is hard to imagine. If your first instinct on hearing of a murder in broad daylight is to reach for the ideological scorecard, you have already surrendered your humanity.

Across the progressive media, the script was familiar. Gleeful libels were spread about a 31-year-old father of two. Violence was suddenly rebranded as a legitimate moral option.

It’s worth considering what the response would have been had the roles been reversed – a left-wing speaker gunned down by a right-wing zealot. America would likely be in flames. There would be riots, candlelit vigils, sombre hashtags and earnest think-pieces drawing solemn parallels with every assassination from John F Kennedy to John Lennon. Instead, the Guardian and the Irish Times dusted off their sanctimonious lists of Charlie Kirk’s worst quotes, as if to say: ‘See? That’s what you get when you’re a right-wing bigot.’

And this is where the left-right charade collapses into farce. Once upon a time those definitions meant something. Now they are little more than Hogwarts houses for overgrown teenagers.

Today, to raise ethical concerns about medical experimentation on children is ‘right-wing’. To question the wisdom of men competing in women’s sports is ‘right-wing’. To say you like your own culture is ‘right-wing’, too. Patriotism is effectively cast as racism.

It wasn’t always this absurd. The concept of a political ‘left’ and ‘right’ began during the French Revolution, dividing those who wanted greater democratic rights, wealth redistribution and reform from those who defended the status quo and the monarchy. This was a genuine contest of ideas – change versus preservation.

Today, these distinctions have all but dissolved. ‘Right-wing’ is a catch-all slur for anyone with an unfashionable opinion. ‘Left-wing’ has become a badge of virtue. What was once a serious clash of philosophies is now a playground insult hurled at whoever irritates you.

Being a good person isn’t about flags or slogans. It’s about the hard, unglamorous stuff: telling the truth, being kind when you’re tired, listening in good faith, showing restraint and refusing to give in to cruelty. And hardest of all, finding the courage to be the lone voice asking, ‘Have you no sense of decency?’.

Yet the lefty still pats himself on the back, convinced he holds a permanent ‘good person’ pass – lifetime validity, no questions asked. But that’s the fantasy. Decency is tested when it costs you, when nobody is watching, when there is no applause.

Your politics don’t make you good. They never did. They never will.

Stella O’Malley is the director and founder of Genspect