interview
The death of right-wing conservative US activist Charlie Kirk will further polarize the already divided country, says political scientist Clüver Ashbrook. And: President Trump is likely to try to capitalize on the crime politically.
tagesschau.de: The political camps in the US are not very reconciled, and the country is divided. Even though there is no suspect yet and therefore no word on the motive. Are you surprised that someone would go to such extremes and kill a right-wing conservative podcaster?
Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook: It doesn't really surprise me. This horrific attack unfortunately fits into three months of escalating political violence in the United States. In June, a man with obvious Christian-national leanings, but also a profoundly disturbed attitude, armed with a political manifesto, carried out two attacks on Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, killing two people.
One notices how political violence is increasing on both sides of the political spectrum. Incidentally, we have, of course, also seen six large, devastating attacks of various kinds over the past six months, which the FBI classifies as so-called domestic terrorism. In the case of the recently killed Charlie Kirk, the victim's immense popularity is a factor.
He was the motivator of the youth
tagesschau.de: Let's briefly return to the popularity you just mentioned. Can you explain Kirk's significance in right-wing conservative circles?
Ashbrook: Kirk was the motivator of youth for the MAGA movement. He was also an important ally for Donald Trump. That means he repeatedly introduced talent from the youth spectrum to the president. New talent for the movement. And that is, of course, extremely important for the movement.
During Trump's first term, we repeatedly wondered whether the movement would outlast a President Trump. Now it's clear that the MAGA movement is indeed so well organized that a figure like Kirk managed to win new voters for the president. The fact that Trump now has a majority in the Senate and Congress is primarily due to his ability to motivate young voters. All of these things make Charlie Kirk a key figure. And the US President's reactions to the assassination attempt also demonstrate how important he was.
To person
Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook is director of the Future of Diplomacy Project at Harvard University. The German-American is a foreign policy expert and works for the Bertelsmann Foundation.
Heated atmosphere is further whipped up
tagesschau.de: Then let's take a closer look at the reactions. Although there is no suspect yet, US President Trump and some right-wing conservative representatives are blaming the political left for the attack. What is the purpose of such accusations?
Ashbrook: I think this is a very dangerous moment. We've also just heard that flags have been ordered at half-mast at all embassies around the world. Three days of half-mast. That didn't happen when the Democratic congresswoman in Minnesota and her husband were shot. The fact that the language is now becoming so heated and alleged perpetrators are being identified is, of course, far too early in the criminal sense. But it is further inflaming a mood that has already been very heated in recent weeks.
For example, Stephen Miller, the number two in the Oval Office, repeatedly chanted on television broadcasts that the Democratic Party was full of left-wing terrorists. This exaggerated language is consistent with what has now been heard since the assassination from various circles around the president and, to some extent, from Trump himself. For example, it was announced that there would now be a hunt for the movements that may have supported this perpetrator. All of this is highly speculative. But here, a moment of political uncertainty is being used to further inflame the mood.
And all of this is happening in a situation where there are many private gun owners and many convicted Capitol attackers have been pardoned by Trump. These are also people who may approve of or call for political violence. It's somewhat reminiscent of the heated situation in the 1960s and 1970s, the era of the Civil Rights Movement. But back then, there were also the assassination attempts on Gerald Ford and President Ronald Reagan. Political violence in the US usually always triggers a movement. And accordingly, this is a very volatile moment for the domestic political situation in the United States.
Violence on the streets is to be feared
tagesschau.de: A person has died, been shot. To what extent do you think some politicians will try to capitalize on this?
Ashbrook: I think we're already seeing that. A quasi-political figure that can be classified as a party-political figure is already being used in the context of a government idea. This includes, for example, the aforementioned flag-flying at embassies. This is a new combination that we haven't seen before.
And there will be attempts to use this to weld the MAGA coalition more closely together. But President Trump will also use this to push through his plans. Things will escalate now, and there will be a lot of trouble much more quickly, and at times even violence on America's streets.
Impact on election campaign
tagesschau.de: The midterm elections are in just over a year in the US. In your opinion, what impact will an assassination attempt like this have on the campaign and the elections themselves?
Ashbrook: An American election campaign is always long. And yet, of course, we see how hard the Republican Party, in particular, is working on electoral law across the country, but also in Washington itself. They want to tailor it so that their voters benefit overall and fare better. We've seen that in Texas, but also in national changes to electoral law. This is an issue that must be closely monitored. But it won't bring the political mood, the political discourse, to a neutral basis where ideas can be discussed.
That, incidentally, is Charlie Kirk's greatest legacy. He repeatedly engaged in political debate. He wanted to achieve that in Utah, too. There are indeed few such figures in the MAGA movement: The fact that he stood for a political debate and his voice has now fallen silent makes the country poorer overall. We need more neutral, open political debates in American discourse—not fewer.
