The Counterpublic Papers vol. 10 no. 1

Author

Lester Spence
September 12, 2025

Welcome to the tenth volume of The Counterpublic Papers. If you’ve been around for a bit, you know the deal. Since 2016 I’ve used this space to think on paper about issues that matter (in some instances, that matter to everyone, in other instances that matter to me) from an Afrorealist point of view. We’re in a very new moment, but one that many of us predicted. The key questions now are two: how do we get out….and how do we rebuild anew. 

I’d originally set out to trace some of the projects I’ve been working on and expect to work on over the course of the next academic year. 

But, current events got in the way.

In this specific instance, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. 

I’ve never talked about Kirk before. But Kirk played a significant role in shaping the world that we now live in, to the extent he and people like him are responsible for radicalizing a swath of the citizenry to the point that the country is now governed by a reactionary death cult posing as a political party. Furthermore, in the wake of his assassination, he’s been lionized. Part of this is to be expected. Even as no one at this point (i.e. Thursday Sept. 11, 5pm EST) knows who the culprit it, his murder is blamed on the radical left, and flags are flown at half mast (which signals that Kirk is to the Right what Rosa Parks was to America). 

But what I didn’t quite expect…was this.

Or this.

Klein:

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.

Burgis and Day:

Four years ago, one of us (Ben) did a debate with Kirk on “Democratic Socialism vs. Conservative Populism.” His politics have trended in an even worse direction over the years since, flirting with much uglier forms of nationalism and xenophobia, but even in 2021, the substance of Kirk’s side of the conversation was indefensible. While claiming the mantle of “populism,” he defended a series of positions that would have been at home on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. He was steadfastly opposed to even baby steps toward a more equal society like universal health care and building a stronger labor movement.

At the same time, he didn’t descend into personal attacks. He stuck to the substance of the arguments, largely steering clear of cheap gotchas and giving Ben the space to hammer home the contradiction between Kirk’s populist rhetoric and the ugly inegalitarian substance of his politics. In a country where substantial numbers of our fellow citizens unfortunately agree with Kirk’s perspective, discussions like that are absolutely necessary. The shooting yesterday points the way toward a much uglier path, and one that won’t and can’t end anywhere we should want to go.

What stands out to me about each piece, is that neither examines Kirk’s statements in full. From reading the pieces, you’d think that Kirk was simply a leading Right wing elite, mobilizing (producing) adherents who then shift political discourse in ways that change common sense. And he does this through “practicing persuasion” and “taking on all comers,” and refraining from descending “into personal attacks” in doing so. 

Yes and no. 

While I have no doubt that Kirk persuaded in this manner…this isn’t all he did. Take a look at his X feed. More important, take a look at the watchlist his organization Turning Point created. There’s no hint of the full range of Kirk’s statements and sentiments in either piece. Which suggests one of two things. Either they were unaware…which means they shouldn’t have written the piece, OR they were aware but couldn’t figure out how to articulate Kirk’s death as a tragedy while recognizing what he stood for. Which means they shouldn’t have written the piece. 

Kirk was a stochastic terrorist. Through his words and his organization, he consistently called for violence against his political enemies. People heard, and acted on those calls. If it isn’t possible to write that while making an argument against political violence and for First Amendment rights, then perhaps the best thing folks should do is simply acknowledge the facts of his death, and add to those facts as they become apparent.

And then after that, particularly given the way the state is reacting—by lowering flags to half mast, calling for violence against “the radical left,”—and the way some have already been threatened (several black colleges have received death threats), more of us should take the time to actively plan for the scenarios that many of us (including me) predicted.

We are not alone. We will win.

This weekend is the Baltimore book festival. I’ll be there most of Saturday and probably some of Sunday. If you’re around come around.