By: Franc Kravos
Charlie Kirk, a famous far-right activist, was tragically shot dead on 10 September. His violent death has sparked outrage across the political spectrum and even celebratory revelry in some leftist circles; a sacrosanct martyr restoring free speech and conservative values for some and a cutthroat crusader responsible for the second coming of fascism for others. But who is Charlie Kirk and what does his controversial legacy and tragic death reveal about contemporary US politics?
In the wake of his death, supporters honoured Kirk while vowing vengeance toward who they deemed the perpetrator of the shooting: the “radical left.” As the target was set upon the back of the Left, even before it was revealed that the alleged shooter was a young white man whose views are unknown, the tidal wave of hatred toward leftists amplified. Fuelling the fire, President Donald Trump gave a speech honouring Kirk and promising to “beat the hell” out of “radical left lunatics.” Far-right figures like J.D. Vance, Pete Hegseth, and Ben Shapiro have followed suit despite Democratic leadership universally condemning the shooting. As reactions oscillate between belching rage and gleeful cheer, the cracks in American politics are widening with the potential for a more dangerous polarised atmosphere. And at the centre of it is Charlie Kirk.
Kirk’s views were divisive and oftentimes antagonistic. On the topic of gun control, Kirk stated that the Second Amendment is “worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year.” Regarding race, Kirk believed that the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed identity-based discrimination, was a “mistake.” Moreover, Kirk often cited the “Great Replacement theory,” a conspiracy theory claiming that white people are being covertly replaced by non-white people. Likewise, he advocated against immigration, the separation of church and state, abortion, gender-affirming care, and other stances typically associated with the (social) Left. Charlie Kirk often targeted feminists, the queer community, and people of colour to spread far-right political ideals, polarising his audience in the process. An audience that was becoming ever more enraged at the target or at Charlie Kirk.
The Lucrative Rage Economy
However, rage is the exact emotion Charlie Kirk and his fellow far-right influencers desired from their audiences. If human emotions are thought of as raw materials, rage is the prized white diamond. Rage provokes people to respond, and in the online world, social media algorithms sense high engagement as virality. Consequently, more users are being exposed, who engage ever more, while the creator and the tech company cash ad revenue. Therefore, it becomes profitable to generate rage through “overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and partial truths about opponents […],” as Sarah Sobieraj and Jeffrey M. Berry write. In fact, some rage-baiters reported to make 150,000 USD per year. This has been exacerbated by almost all major social media companies switching to an engagement-based revenue model and reducing content moderation.
This system, in which harmful rhetoric is profitable, is the industry in which Charlie Kirk operated: the rage economy. Although Kirk founded the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA, aiming to encourage civic engagement, he rose to prominence through his social media accounts, a podcast called The Charlie Kirk Show, and participation in political debates. In fact, his podcast became his most lucrative venture, which is unsurprising given that the US podcasting industry’s ad revenue came in just below four billion dollars in 2024. Moreover, the industry is dominated by right-wing political podcasts, who have almost five times the engagement of their left-wing counterparts. Hence, it is unsurprising that Charlie Kirk reached five million monthly listeners before his death. His content was meant to create scandals in order to foster engagement, which worked as he garnered up to 50 million views per video with his most controversial statements polling ahead. Considering his 400,000 USD salary as CEO of Turning Point USA, the fact that his debate appearances cost up to 10,000 USD, and the immense ad revenue from his podcast and social media activities, his multi-million-dollar net worth becomes understandable.
Online political commentators and tech companies have created and sustained the rage economy, which has a spillover effect. In Kirk’s case, the funding and membership of Turning Point USA grew alongside his popularity. Likewise, the Trump Administration and the Republican Party (GOP) benefit from right-wing rage bait not only because of its radicalisation effect, but also because it creates distrust in democratic institutions, which are often barriers to Trump’s agenda.
The Danger of Simple Narratives
Alongside gaining profit, the rage economy distributes simplified explanations for complex societal issues. Oftentimes, these narratives correctly identify problems but offer simplified solutions, blaming groups of people associated with the left and democratic institutions. When Charlie Kirk commented on low fertility rates among young women by saying that “[…] they don’t value having children,” he not only put the blame on women, but presented a simpler narrative than the overwhelming amount of studies identifying multiple influencing factors, undermining academic research in the process.
Simple antagonistic narratives create a calming illusion of control and stability in a time of overarching uncertainty while identifying a clear scapegoat. For example, right-wing Americans often perceive migrants as the prime cause of crime, the opioid epidemic, unemployment, and economic inequality. If those perceptions are taken as truth, enacting violence toward migrants creates a false sense of safety to non-migrants. This false sense of safety is felt by 46% of Americans who support the actions of ICE. These same actions have led to violent ICE raids, deportations without due process, wide trauma, and in some cases death. Conversely, those opposed to such violence are seen as enablers of uncertainty and harm. The crux of these narratives benefits the far-right because they justify the use of excessive violence, leading to more harm, and a greater need for safety. Inadvertently, this creates a closed loop of violence and polarisation.
Normalisation of Political Violence
A polarised environment is a perfect breeding ground for political violence to fester. The FBI reports that domestic terrorism has seen a 357% increase just from 2013 to 2021. On 14 June of last year, a Democratic legislator and her husband were killed by an anti-abortion gunman who also seriously injured her colleague and his wife. A month later, then presidential candidate Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt. Additionally, the UnitedHealthcare CEO was shot dead in the street in December 2024, fuelling further political tensions.
Whether through copy-cats or by enacting more violence on those deemed responsible, political violence compounds itself. The GOP and Trump’s Administration have vigorously blamed the left for the assassination of Kirk, despite a lack of evidence, yet are still promising a retaliatory attack. Already 145 people, from lawyers to nurses, have been fired because of their opinions on Kirk, including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who was later reinstated. Six foreigners have had their visas revoked for the same remarks and denials of entry have been threatened to visa-applicants. Antifa has been declared a domestic terrorist organisation, and the FBI is planning to label trans people as “nihilistic violent extremists.” These measures, professing to limit violence, will only lead to more (political) violence. Only two weeks after the assassination, a sniper in Dallas targeting ICE agents killed two immigrant detainees and injured another before killing himself. Trump’s calculation seems to be quite simple: more uncertainty and political violence fuels the need for more stability, which Trump purports to provide, leading to more uncertainty and political violence, consolidating power to him.
Likewise, the hundreds of news stories, social media posts, and podcasts detailing horrific political violence are leaving media consumers in a state of fatigue. This fatigue is both repelling them from traditional news and into the hands of rage bait, as well as normalising them to such occurrences. This exemplifies what author Naomi Klein calls “the shock doctrine.” Similarly, a Wall Street Journal poll revealed that only 56% of Gen Z, who are avid social media users, say that political violence is “never acceptable”, compared to 93% among Baby Boomers.
The Rage Economy Prospers
The ideas that Kirk was perpetuating are not new. Rather, they are steeped in long histories of colonialism and white supremacy. Kirk’s attempt at radicalising people, especially young white men, was successful not because the harmful ideas have a magical allure. Instead, Kirk purposefully expressed them through a simplified narrative packaged as rage bait. More than the ideas, it is the medium of the message (rage bait) and the system in which it spreads (rage economy) that are dangerous. The rage economy has been perfectly tailored to produce a festering zone of polarisation and right-wing radicalisation. To address this issue, the rage economy must not remain unabated. Rage can be a valuable emotion for political action to materialise. However, when induced for profit, it leads to a system of governance that is plagued with polarisation and political violence, facilitating an authoritarian power grab.
Edited by: Michael Meyer, Jekaterina Savicka, and Jonathan Verkuil
Image Source: Colin Lloyd from Unsplash.