【By Observer Net Columnist Shen Yi】

The co-founder of the American conservative youth movement organization "American Turn" and well-known internet celebrity and right-wing opinion leader Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on September 10th at noon local time while participating in a campus event at Utah Valley University in Utah. Multiple mainstream media and local media have confirmed the death. President Trump first announced his death through social media and ordered the national flag to be lowered to half-mast in memory. Utah Governor Spencer Cox described the incident as a "political assassination" during a press conference.

According to police briefings and existing information, some key details of the incident have been initially disclosed. The shooting was launched from a high place within the campus or nearby buildings, at a long distance, but there are different accounts regarding whether it was indeed a "roof shooting 200 yards away" as some media claimed. It is known that the perpetrator fired only one shot, hitting Charlie Kirk's neck, causing panic among the crowd and a temporary campus lockdown. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation once stated on social media that "a person of interest has been detained," but about an hour and a half later, the person was released, and the investigation is ongoing.

Charlie Kirk was giving a speech at Utah Valley University before being shot dead. Visual China

Other than announcing the lowering of the flag, the White House website also published the presidential action document. Members of both parties in Congress have made statements condemning political violence from different angles.

As Charlie Kirk himself is a highly controversial figure and a well-known representative of the American youth MAGA movement, although he is much younger and has a different social status compared to Trump, they are direct political allies in terms of political influence and promotion of the MAGA movement. Therefore, the incident was quickly politicized.

Media coverage is still focusing on how to capture the suspect and the suspect's identity, but in mourning the event and offline discussions, some comments have pointed out that if handled improperly, this incident may become a "powder keg", subject to competitive interpretations and exploitation by various political forces, thereby having a profound impact on the relationship between different groups and classes in American society.

At present, key information such as the motive of the perpetrator, whether it was a single person or an organized group, has not been officially disclosed. Utah Governor immediately proposed the term "political assassination," which, from the perspective of media analysis, is more like a political figure's intuitive reaction rather than an official classification.

In the context of highly fragmented social media and highly polarized domestic politics in the United States, preconceived expectations are difficult to eliminate. "Group polarization" may become the most important background factor influencing the subsequent development of public opinion.

In the current structure of the "culture war" in the United States, the conservatives are likely to incorporate this incident into the framework of "conservative free speech facing violent threats" and "traditional values being attacked," thus calling for stronger law enforcement policies and previously controversial "combating domestic extremism"—of course, referring to the kind of "extremism" that takes an extreme attitude toward the values advocated by conservatism.

On the other hand, the liberal and moderate factions may emphasize that far-right rhetoric itself incites hatred and leads to social chaos. The two narratives are diametrically opposed, further deepening the division, rather than what some people outside the United States, who have a special emotional attachment to the United States, hope for—that the United States will "seek new consensus to bridge the divide after the tragic event." This is unlikely to happen.

For the conservatives, Charlie Kirk's death also has a symbolic function of consolidation—it has almost become a "martyr," representing the value of "defending free speech" and "protecting conservative voices entering the campus." It is expected to trigger a new round of political mobilization within the MAGA group. Of course, this will also stimulate the other side to launch counter-mobilizations such as "anti-political violence," "anti-hate," and "gun control." The result is not resolving conflicts, but making polarization more explicit.

People gathered at the Olmstead Park in downtown Orem to hold a vigil and pray for the young activist Charlie Kirk.

From the federal to the state level, legislators and representatives at all levels have begun to seek maximum political assets and maneuvering. Either loudly shouting "justice" during the mourning period, or making statements from a distance, engaging in intense disputes around accountability, motives, security, and gun control. However, it is likely to continue the characteristics of recent years in the U.S. Congress: fierce statements but little practical results.

Socially, two major impacts are expected: one is the loss of control over information dissemination, and the second is the classic paradox of security and freedom reappearing.

Fragmented social media dissemination will lead to an "information black hole effect"—a large amount of information not deeply verified by traditional media spreads widely through algorithms, challenging the control of elite layers over agenda setting, which significantly affects the subsequent development of the situation.

On the other hand, since the incident occurred on a campus, it relates to the right to bear arms and campus security. If measures are strengthened in the future, such as increasing inspections and limiting the scale of open-air political activities, it may raise concerns about the shrinking of the space for speech; if maintaining high openness, the real risks are evident. It can be said that under the current American political framework, not only the optimal solution, but even the second-best "procedural voluntary transparency" tripartite balance is difficult to achieve.

From the governance perspective, gun control, campus security, and domestic extremism governance are long-standing issues. After this incident, related debates are expected to structurally return to Congress, but due to the constraints of party distribution and voter preferences, it is still difficult to reach a consensus this time. More likely, some symbolic bills and the old situation of each state acting independently will prevail.

This is not a single incident, but determined by the contemporary American political structure and interest map.

At the implementation level, state governments, universities, and security agencies may increase security investment in the short term, such as setting up temporary observation points and enhancing building barriers—after all, this is a strong stimulus. But this will also bring up new problems of cost increases and execution efficiency. Remember the astonishing coordination failure between local police and Trump's security team during the assassination attempt? Such inefficient governance capabilities will once again show the true scenes of the United States.

Summarizing, after Charlie Kirk's assassination, the conservatives and liberals will each consume him, constructing narratives that benefit themselves. Both sides may wave the banner of "against political violence," but their attributions will be completely opposite. The security threshold in various places may be raised, but the actual effect should not be overestimated.

Regarding election politics, although it is still far from important national elections in the United States, this incident has quickly become an issue. The liberals will emphasize gun control and anti-hatred politics, while the conservatives will focus on the identity of the shooter—if the perpetrator has a liberal tendency, they will immediately portray him as a "violent threat to traditional values." This operation will only deepen the division.

This is the terrifying aspect of political polarization. Once polarization is formed, under the framework of election politics, it will be self-consistent, self-motivating, and continuously intensifying, posing a huge risk to the entire society and country.

Charlie Kirk speaking with U.S. President Donald Trump at the 2024 "America Fest" conference.

From the governance perspective, we expect to see "stable inefficiency." Unless a truly rare consensus emerges, systemic reforms such as gun screening, federal funding for campus security, and defining responsibilities of online platforms cannot appear. More likely, the government at all levels and universities will make some technical and procedural small adjustments. This has repeatedly happened in the United States, and it is estimated to be no different this time.

Overall, this is a highly sensitive event still under investigation, but it is undoubtedly considered to have political attributes—using the words of the governor of Utah, it is "a political assassination." It clearly reflects three structural challenges currently faced by the United States:

First, the polarized narratives between political factions mutually reinforce and intensify, forming a spiral;

Second, the fragmented information dissemination brought by social media fuels the spread of emotions and the actionization of hate speech, continuously increasing offline risks;

Third, the governance capacity at the federal and state levels continues to be inefficient, struggling to cope with real challenges.

In the short term, we may see intense debates on security and freedom, guns and speech, campuses and politics, but it is likely that these debates will still remain in mutual accusations, digging for political value, and serving electoral goals, rather than truly eliminating risks, bridging divisions, and healing the rift.

This is the tragedy of contemporary American politics, and it thoroughly demonstrates to the world that the institutional design once hoped for by certain theories, believed to self-correct and bridge divisions, has not performed as expected, and should not be overglorified anymore.

From a certain point of view, this incident is a sign, and it may even have significant aftereffects, bringing profound and direct impacts on the stability of American society.

This article is an exclusive article by Observer Net. The content of the article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Without authorization, it is prohibited to reprint it; otherwise, legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the WeChat account guanchacn of Observer Net to read interesting articles every day.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7548708979438780963/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [top/minus] buttons below.