When Tragedy Becomes a Weapon: How Charlie Kirk’s Death Is Being Used Against Us

A Nation Rocked by The Death of Charlie Kirk

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10th at Utah Valley University has become more than just the story of one man’s tragic death. It has become a mirror reflecting America’s deepest wounds: political polarization, unchecked hostility, and a growing inability to see each other as human beings.

The responses to his death have been telling. For some, Kirk was a voice who spoke to their values, someone they admired for standing firm against what they saw as a changing, hostile culture. His death has left these supporters grieving, some describing it as losing a hero. For others, his words over the years — often seen as sexist, racist, or bigoted — caused pain, anger, and exclusion. For this group, his death has been met not with sorrow but with celebration, a response that itself reveals just how raw the wounds are on both sides of America’s political divide.

The Political Exploitation of Grief

At the very same time, politicians and commentators have rushed in to frame the narrative, using the tragedy to score points against their rivals. The current Republican administration has painted Kirk’s death as evidence of the left’s dangerous rhetoric, while critics accuse conservatives of exploiting a tragedy for political gain. In this back-and-forth, one thing is clear: instead of healing, the chasm between us is widening.

This is not surprising. Division has become the currency of American politics. Leaders know that outrage energizes voters more than unity ever has. And in an age of 24-hour news cycles, social media virality, and culture-war politics, a tragedy like this is not simply mourned — it is weaponized. The people caught in the middle, ordinary Americans who just want a safer, kinder, more stable country, are left watching their grief and anger turned into someone else’s campaign slogan.

But here is the truth we are at risk of losing sight of: people are not symbols. Charlie Kirk was not only an activist but also a husband, a friend, and a son. His supporters are not faceless “others,” but real people in real pain. His critics are not soulless “enemies,” but human beings who carry scars from being marginalized or dismissed by rhetoric that cut deeply. Every person’s response — grief, relief, confusion, or anger — is rooted in their lived experience.

Compassion: Agreement Is Not Required

That is why, right now, compassion matters more than ever. Compassion does not erase disagreement. It does not excuse hurtful ideologies or hateful words. What it does is remind us that across every line we draw — political, religious, cultural — there are people who love, who hurt, who fear, and who hope.

In practice, compassion looks small, even fragile. It might be choosing not to mock someone’s grief, even when you don’t share it. It might be refusing to cheer for someone’s death, even when you opposed them in life. It might be as simple as pausing before reacting online, asking yourself whether your words will heal or deepen the wound.

Self-Care in Times of Division

And just as importantly, compassion begins with ourselves. These past weeks have been overwhelming, and for many, retraumatizing. If you are feeling drained, anxious, or angry, here are a few ways to care for yourself in the middle of all this noise:

• Limit exposure to outrage cycles. Social media rewards anger, not healing. Take breaks. Step away. You do not need to consume every hot take to be informed.

• Honor your emotions. Whether you are grieving or relieved, angry or conflicted, your feelings are valid. They are part of how you process a turbulent moment.

• Stay rooted in community. Spend time with people who see you fully — not just as a political identity, but as a whole human being.

• Reconnect with your body. Stress from national crises lives in the body. Gentle exercise, intentional breathing, and even small rituals of rest can make a difference.

• Do something life-giving. Create art, cook a meal, garden, play music, or simply go for a walk. In times of collective pain, acts of creation remind us that renewal is possible.

Choosing Healing Over Harm

We do not have to agree on Charlie Kirk’s legacy to agree that the cycle of hate, grief, and exploitation must end somewhere. We can refuse to be pawns in a political game that thrives on our outrage. We can decide, right now, to respond differently — not with silence in the face of injustice, but with compassion in the face of one another’s humanity.

When we let the government—or any power-hungry force—pit us against each other, we hand over the very thing that makes us strong: our unity. Every insult flung across the aisle, every sneer at “the other side,” is exactly what those in power are counting on. They thrive on our outrage because a divided people are easy to manipulate, easy to distract, and easy to control. The truth is, whether you loved Charlie Kirk or despised everything he stood for, his death should not be used as a weapon to keep us locked in endless combat. If we allow that, we’re not just dishonoring his memory—we’re dishonoring ourselves by giving up the chance to rise above the script written for us.

Tragedies have the power to split nations apart or to bring them closer together. What happens next will depend not on the politicians who profit from our division, but on the choices we each make in our daily lives. Will we harden, or will we soften? Will we let our neighbors become enemies, or will we insist on seeing them as people first?

The death of Charlie Kirk does not have to be another milestone in America’s spiral of division. It could be a moment — if we are willing — to choose compassion over contempt, connection over isolation, and healing over harm.

References

• Moore-Berg, S., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions fuel partisans’ dislike of the opposition. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117

• Petsko, C., & Kteily, N. (2023). Political meta-dehumanization in mental representations. Psychological Science.

• Druckman, J., Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2023). Political polarization and health outcomes. Social Science & Medicine.

• Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health (2022). Political polarization poses health risks, new analysis concludes.

• Klimecki, O. M. (2019). The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution. Emotion Review.

• Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2023). Reducing polarization through conversation. PNAS.

• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science.