I don’t believe the statement was actual justification for the act. Rather, it sought to point out: “folks like Kirk spew into the political space and then refuse to take responsibility for its consequences. This needs to end”. That is not “justifying” violence at all. It’s pointing out that rhetoric can lead to such outcomes, and we should at least understand that much. Rhetoric can divide, or it can bring people together. It can launch civil wars, it can unite a nation behind noble causes.
I’ve been referring to Trump as a fascist almost since he came down the escalator in Trump Tower and announced 10 years ago. But that’s not my fault, because it’s not my fault that Trump entertains fascist world views: creating “the other” to serve as a convenient target around which to use anger to rally and maintain a following of the disaffected members of our society, who will resonate with such techniques used to create followings. He did that the very day he came down that escalator 10 years ago. For someone with my background, right then and there: “You’ve seen this movie before. You know who I am and what I represent. It can happen here”.
And fascism always tales on characteristics of the nation in which it arises, and, unfortunetly, our nation included the ingredients that would make it flourish, once a master demagouge like Trump instinctively knew how to tap into it. Christian nationalism is a part of that uniquely Americanized fascist movement. Basically removing the Golden Rule from that faith, removing Love itself, and replacing it with an extraordinary degree of intolerance of others. Recognizing that all this is part of our present moment, with deep roots in our history, is a necessary thing if one wants the clearest understanding of our present moment. But that’s just my opinion. It’s shared by the scholars whose opinions I value. It’s not shared by people like yourself.
You know, we all bring to bear, in these threads, what we have to offer.