The surprisingly good coverage of last night’s vigil for Charlie Kirk at the Rhode Island State House is encouraging to see, both from WPRI (Channel 12) and WJAR (Channel 10).  The message was of unity, and you don’t realize how barren of faith mainstream news has become until somebody like Jake Marshall of Bristol says he “felt the presence of the Lord” and WJAR actually uses that clip in its reportage.

Also notable is something that didn’t appear:  leftist disruption.  The progressive brass band that likes to show up and drown out speakers with whom it disagrees stayed home.  It would be nice to think we’ve finally moved out of the time when radicals used accusations of fascism as an excuse to behave like fascists, but it’s almost certainly a brief respite.  Progressives have no doubt been surprised by the strength of the response and its global reach.  This points to the necessity of holding up their behavior for honest scrutiny by those who can affect their lives, like employers.  Among the frightening spectacles of the last decade has been progressives’ success defining what is objectionable and what is unobjectionable based on what they choose to ignore or amplify.

A Friday evening vigil, though, is not enough.  Surely hundreds of Rhode Islanders (myself among them) were unable to attend, because of either conflicting responsibilities or a lack of awareness.  The awareness problem extends to our awareness of each other.  I saw people in the crowd whom I know outside of politics and whom I’d have never expected to attend such an event.

Charlie Kirk’s legacy shouldn’t reflect his victimhood, but his methods.  He had a simple idea:  Go out and talk to people.  We need to talk to people.  The thought can be intimidating, and watching clips from Kirk’s events can make it more so.  He was so good at what he did.  But there are two important things to remember:

1. People understandably share the clips that make good points, not the instances that must of existed where the outcome was ambiguous.
2. Charlie wasn’t always that good.  One of the most impressive things about him was that he loved the opportunity to learn.  When somebody made a point for which he wasn’t prepared, he would go home and do the research to strengthen his position.

You don’t have to be good from the start.  It doesn’t matter if other people win the debate from time to time.  The possibility of being outmatched on some topic or other should encourage humility, not anxiety.  Charlie wasn’t embarrassed to fall back on the acknowledgment that he was a sinner doing his best.  Discovering a weak spot in your knowledge or thinking is progress, and it’s never an inappropriate response to say, “You make a good point, but I’m not convinced and need to think about that point some more.”

In this respect, Charlie Kirk embodied one of the things that makes the political right so much more compassionate and human.  Progressives have written several books about the cutting edge of their persuasion techniques — things like “deep canvassing.”  They’re guidebooks for manipulating people so they’ll vote the way you want them to.  Academic teams at multiple universities and in well-funded left-wing nonprofits have sent out teams across the country to study how door-knockers can get normal people to focus on the positives of the desired position and ignore the negatives and counterpoints.

In contrast, Charlie set up a table and said, “Talk to me.”  That works, I think, because our beliefs are true.  Truth shouldn’t need to manipulate, but it does need to be stated.

Featured image by Justin Katz using DALL-E.