The leftist rant unstopping even after the cruel assassination of conservative Charles Kirk, New York Times columnist Elizabeth Spiers has spewed venom in a piece titled “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning,” in an article published in The Nation. She writes, Charles Kirk, 31, died after being shot at a public event in Utah, moments after responding to a question about mass shootings, but rather than expressing basic human decency or sympathy, Spiers instead used the tragedy as an opportunity to unleash a politically charged tirade against Kirk, celebrating his death as some sort of moral correction.
Spiers makes it clear she holds no regard for Kirk’s life or legacy, describing him as a “bigot” and “Christian nationalist” who, in her words, “profited from hate.” She paints a picture of a man defined not by ideas or debates, but by prejudice a view many see as not only biased but deliberately dehumanizing.
She writes, “He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people.” Spiers’s disdain for Kirk is so intense that she even questions why anyone would mourn him, comparing the idea of honoring his legacy to writing a flattering obituary for Joseph Goebbels.
This rhetoric is not only disrespectful it’s inflammatory. Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was a prominent conservative voice who built his platform engaging with students across campuses, challenging progressive orthodoxy, and advocating for individual rights, traditional values, and free speech. But for Spiers, none of these matter. She dismisses his achievements and influence entirely, insisting his success was rooted in bigotry rather than ideology.
Instead of acknowledging Kirk’s impact on political discourse or the tragic nature of his assassination Spiers fixates on his past statements, cherry-picking quotes to portray him in the worst possible light. Her writing goes beyond criticism; it reads more like a personal vendetta, laced with mockery and disdain and this is not criticism it’s character assassination. She accuses Kirk of being anti-Black, anti-women, anti-LGBT, and anti-immigrant, offering no room for nuance or complexity. She writes, “The man who said, ‘Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot’ said it while wearing a nice shirt and a tie on a podcast… That does not make it any less racist.”
Spiers even takes aim at Kirk’s children and family, implying that fatherhood doesn’t mitigate his so-called harm. The cruelty here is striking especially given that Kirk’s family is now mourning an assassination. She says, “He had children, as do many vile people.” She adds, “I don’t know if Kirk was a good father, but if he was, that does little to mitigate the damage he did to other people’s children.”
To further her case, she invokes his views on the Second Amendment, suggesting that Kirk’s support for gun rights somehow makes his death by gunfire poetic justice. She even drags his family into the mix, coldly stating that “having children does not redeem him,” and suggesting that his kids would be better off learning to reject his values. This level of cruelty, especially directed at a grieving family, reveals more about Spiers’s own worldview than it does about Kirk’s.
At one point, she questions whether civility itself is a moral value, openly admitting that she sees no reason to “be nice” about Kirk’s death because, in her view, the harm he caused outweighs the tragedy of his murder. “It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth,” it’s a chilling statement, one that seems to justify hatred under the guise of social justice.
What’s perhaps most disturbing is Spiers’s attempt to delegitimize Kirk’s entire life’s work. She denies that his organization contributed to political debate, calling it a front for indoctrination rather than engagement. Yet, countless students, activists, and supporters would argue otherwise. Whether one agreed with Kirk or not, he sparked conversation, motivated youth participation in politics, and gave a voice to a side often shut out in academic and media circles.
In one particularly telling passage, Spiers writes that she doesn’t celebrate Kirk’s death—but also doesn’t feel obligated to respect his life. That admission reveals more about her approach than about Kirk himself. She writes, “I won’t celebrate his death, but I’m not obligated to celebrate his life, either.”
Spiers and others may celebrate the silencing of that voice, but many Americans see this as a dangerous step away from democratic norms. Her op-ed is not a call for reflection or accountability; it’s a justification for hatred against anyone who holds conservative views.
In the end, the tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s death is compounded by the disgraceful response from figures like Elizabeth Spiers who see no value in human life unless it aligns with their politics. While many across the spectrum have condemned the violence and offered condolences, Spiers chose instead to dance on a grave. And that, perhaps, is the most revealing part of all.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
