Political Violence in America: A New Era?

Summary

City Journal Audio – "Political Violence in America: A New Era?"

Date: September 15, 2025
Host: Kerry Seropoulos
Guests: Jesse Arm (VP of External Affairs), Josh Appel (Policy Analyst), Stu Smith (Investigative Analyst)

Episode Overview

The episode addresses the shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—a major figure in the American right—and unpacks what his killing reveals about new forms of political violence, online radicalization, and ideological polarization in contemporary America. The panel analyzes the motivations and cultural signals in the assassination, the subsequent reactions on social and mainstream media, and connects these events to broader trends in crime, ideology, policy, and civic life. The latter part explores recent violent crimes linked to repeat offenders and debates the influence of activist NGOs on justice policies. The guests ultimately reflect on sources of hope and resilience amid escalating disorder and pessimism.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Remembering Charlie Kirk and the Nature of the Attack

• Kirk's Unprecedented Assassination

  • Jesse Arm: "Charlie Kirk's assassination is differentiated from many of the other kind of political tragedies that we've seen because it's a break with precedent in so many ways." (01:22)
    • Noted that targeting a grassroots, mainstream conservative—rather than a head of state—signals a troubling escalation.
    • Kirk's focus on debate and dialogue, especially on hostile college campuses, made conservatism feel "younger, more confident, and more mainstream" (02:30).
    • Jesse recalls the personal impact of hearing Kirk speak and being won over by his "mix of charisma and humor and really relentless preparation." (02:54)

• Kirk’s Character and Approach

  • Josh Appel observed Kirk’s “elegance”—"I’ve never seen a clip of him, as far as my knowledge extends, of him yelling or exuding any ad hominem attack." (03:43)
  • Jesse Arm acknowledges Kirk could be combative, but that it made him “prepared for the political warfare that we were entering in the Trump era.”
  • Kirk consistently warned against online radicalization and conspiracy rabbit holes on the right: “Charlie was someone who, until the very end, cautioned aggressively against that instinct and was trying to build a healthier right.” (05:35)

2. Parsing the Assassin’s Identity and Motivations

• Engravings on Bullet Casings

  • Stu Smith explains four distinct inscriptions:
    1. "Hey Fascist Catch" with a video game input from Helldivers 2 (07:07)
    2. "Bella Ciao" - an Italian anti-fascist song with deep roots in leftist activism; previously cited by radical actors. (07:23)
    3. "If you read this, you're gay. lmao" - described as nihilistic Gen Z humor.
    4. "notices bulge owo what's this" - traced to “furry” and intersectional online subcultures. (09:00)
  • Robinson, the suspect, lived in fringe Internet spaces blending anti-fascism and ironic Gen Z aesthetics. Smith: "Robinson was clearly someone who was on the Internet way too much." (08:08)

• Assassin’s Radical Identity

  • Robinson was identified with the furry community and a nontraditional gender identity, debunking claims he was far-right; his slogans and social media activity were strongly coded leftist/Antifa. (10:00)
  • Stu Smith: "It's disingenuous for anyone to push it as anything other than that." (11:07)

• Online Meme-Driven Violence and ‘Luigism’

  • Jesse Arm connects Kirk's assassination to "Luigism" (ref.: Luigi Mangione, another recent ideological killer):
    • Describes it as "an online meme driven ideology which says violence is justified in instances where it punishes capitalism, Zionism, or...American capitalism." (11:44)

3. Public and Elite Reactions: Celebrating Political Murder

• Widespread Approval and the Psychology of Dehumanization

  • Panelists shocked by the widespread celebration of Kirk’s killing, especially among educators, government officials, and youth. Stu Smith: "It's to a level that I've never seen before in terms of barbarity and just extreme malice." (17:34)
  • Josh Appel gives historical context: modern terror traces back to the French Revolution and is amplified by atomization and social media. "We have inverted the moral underpinnings of good and evil." (15:02)
  • The show discusses examples: a Canadian teacher reportedly forced students to watch the assassination on repeat, public celebrations by public figures, and social media virality.

• Elite-Driven, Envy-Fueled Nihilism

  • Jesse Arm underscores the peculiar “elite-driven” nature of much left-wing nihilism (19:40), referencing Oscar/Emmy speeches with radical messages and noting how these gestures grab attention rather than enact real change.

4. Debating ‘Cancel Culture’ for Celebrating Violence

• Distinguishing Between Cancel Culture and Accountability
  • The hosts agree that being fired for celebrating murder is not "cancel culture"—it's a just consequence for violating workplace norms and basic decency:
    • Stu Smith: “I don’t think it's remotely cancel culture. I don't want to work with someone who is celebrating murder.” (22:12)
    • Jesse Arm: "If somebody made a horrific comment like that during a staff meeting...there'd immediately be a social cost for it." (23:01)
  • Social media expands the “public square,” making undisciplined, extreme opinions visible and actionable.

5. Crime, Recidivism, and the Politics of Disorder

• The Charlotte Stabbing and ‘Disorder is a Choice’

  • Discussion shifts to the murder of an innocent woman on light rail by a repeat offender, raising the issue of public policy, mental illness, and public safety.
  • Appel: “Progressive lawmakers...have committed themselves to social justice over actual justice.” (25:39)
  • Causal factors include ideological bias toward blaming the system, not the individual, for heinous acts.

• Militarized Responses and Shifting Public Opinion

  • Jesse Arm notes the overwhelmingly positive public response to National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C. and Memphis, even among left-leaning leaders and citizens. (29:22)
  • The panel notes that tangible crime reductions demonstrate the effectiveness of visible security and “broken windows” principles.

• The Influence of Ideological NGOs on Progressive Prosecution

  • Josh Appel summarizes how groups like the Wren Collective embed themselves in prosecutors’ offices, promoting maximalist progressive positions—often against the wishes of the urban electorate. (31:35)
  • Arm describes this as a permanent, well-funded apparatus that prevents politicians from calibrating policy to voter preferences, e.g., on crime or women's sports. (32:59)

6. Strategies of Resistance and Civic Restoration

• Public Art and Political Memory

  • The group discusses whether painting murals of crime victims can raise the salience of the consequences of progressive crime policies.
  • Smith supports it as “one tactic,” while Arm, with characteristic humor, sees value “even if it is AI Slop.” (39:41)
  • Cultural and policy responses are both urged: “We need more to fight this because it feels like a losing battle sometimes.” (39:20 – Smith)

• Literature, Faith, and Spiritual Resilience

  • In closing, the panel recommends sources of courage and hope:
    • Josh Appel: C.S. Lewis and Tolkien for mythic visions of good over evil. (41:18)
    • Stu Smith: Virgil’s Aeneid—lessons of perseverance and rising from tragedy. (41:43)
    • Jesse Arm: Psalm 23—"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil." (42:31)
    • Kerry Seropoulos: For Whom the Bell Tolls by Hemingway for courage amid darkness. (43:03)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jesse Arm on Kirk’s uniqueness:
  “Charlie really dominated in all of those aspects, and beyond just that, built a behemoth of an organization that…actually went on to far surpass…even the Republican Party nationally, the Republican National Committee, at least in terms of its importance to the American right.” (13:08)

• Josh Appel on cultural decay:
  “We have become so atomized and really inverted the moral underpinnings of good and evil… evil people are not responsible for their actions, but instead are products of a system.” (15:02)

• Stu Smith on the reaction to Kirk’s murder:
  “It’s to a level that I never seen before in terms of barbarity and just extreme malice.” (17:34)

• Jesse Arm on social sanctions:
  “When they…create a permission structure by which we say political people with the wrong beliefs…should be killed and we should celebrate it, you’re actually moving into action territory. It’s no longer just a thought crime.” (24:16)

• Jesse Arm on progressive influencers:
  “There is a massive army of extremely well funded ideological groups, non governmental organizations…that fund people who are intensely ideological…and who work in a kind of pure permanent extra governmental bureaucracy that makes it incredibly difficult for the Democratic Party...to respond to the fact that a majority of Democratic voters…don’t want biological men playing in women’s sports...” (33:03)

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:22] – Jesse Arm reflects on Kirk’s unique legacy and the precedent-breaking nature of his assassination.
• [03:43] – Josh Appel and Jesse Arm discuss Kirk’s demeanor and approach to political discourse.
• [07:07] – Stu Smith details the inscriptions on the bullet casings.
• [09:00] – Explanation of fringe online subcultures implicated in the killer’s identity.
• [11:44] – Jesse Arm explains "Luigism" and its connection to meme-driven violence.
• [15:02] – Josh Appel provides philosophical and historical context for the cultural acceptance of political murder.
• [17:34] – Stu Smith details the scope and intensity of reactions to Kirk’s killing.
• [22:12–24:16] – Panel consensus: firing those who celebrate murder is not “cancel culture,” but accountability.
• [25:39] – Charlotte stabbing as case study in policy failures and ideological blind spots.
• [29:22] – Jesse Arm discusses deterrence effects of National Guard in cities.
• [31:35–33:03] – The role of ideological NGOs in shaping progressive prosecutorial agendas and disconnect with voters.
• [38:55–40:31] – Debating the merits and limits of public art as a form of activism.
• [41:18–43:36] – Closing recommendations: readings, faith, and sources of resilience.

---

Closing Reflections

The panel warns that America is entering a perilous new era wherein political violence is meme-driven, radicalization is viral, and mainstream institutions too often cheer on or rationalize extremism. Still, they urge listeners to seek fortitude in faith, art, and the enduring strengths of Western civilization while fighting to reclaim public policy and moral norms from ideological radicals—left and right alike.

---

Suggested Reading List from the Panel:

• The Book of Psalms (Bible)
• Virgil’s Aeneid
• Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls
• Any works by C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

Final Wisdom:
“Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me.” (Psalm 23 – cited at 42:31 by Jesse Arm)

---

For further discussion:
Comment, subscribe, and let the City Journal team know your interests for future episodes.

Transcript

[A]

Hello and welcome back to the City Journal podcast. I'm your host for today, Kerry Seropoulos. And joining me are three of Manhattan Institute's sharpest minds. Today we have with us Jesse Arm, our Vice President of External affairs, Josh Appel, a policy analyst on our Cities team, and Stu Smith, our new investigative analyst. Gentlemen, thank you for joining me.

[B]

Thank you for having us.

[C]

Thanks for having us.

[D]

Happy to be here.

[A]

We've got a lot to talk about, but before we dive in, everyone please remember to like and subscribe so you never miss an episode and we can keep growing the conversation. Now, starting off, it's been a long and kind of tough week. It's a story sweeping the nation. I'm sure all of our viewers have been tuned into this. Last week, in the middle of a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed. Charlie was a proud advocate for free speech, open debate, and American values. Our condolences go out to his family and his many friends and to the millions of people whose lives were positively impacted by him. Charlie's work touched the lives of millions, including some of us here today. Jesse, you wrote a piece last week for City Journal talking a little bit about the impact that Charlie Kirk played in your life. Tell us a little bit about how he led to you to get to where you are today.

[C]

Yeah, well, I think in broad strokes, Charlie Kirk's assassination is differentiated from many of the other kind of political tragedies that we've seen because it's a break with precedent in so many ways. This wasn't, you know, shooting at a president. That's something we've seen before in this country. And Kirk himself was not a polarizing agitator who was far out on the political fringe. This was somebody who, rather than pushing the envelope, was kind of, you know, a 31 year old father who really made it his mission to debate anyone, anywhere, including in the most hostile environments imaginable for conservatives, which are, you know, the hotbeds of progressive idealism that are college campuses. And this is somebody who sort of succeeded to make conservatism feel a lot younger and more confident and more mainstream. Perhaps the most successful man in doing so since William F. Buckley. And I remember the first time I heard him, it was a freezing and bitterly cold night in 2018 at the University of Michigan. And I walked out kind of convinced he was in many ways a rival to maybe the faction of the conservative right that I had been being built up in. I was doing work for a different right of center think tank at the time as their campus ambassador, one that really kind of prized this bipartisan respectability. And like Kirk did for so many, many more people over the years who are much further apart from him than I was on the ideological spectrum, he changed my mind that evening. He had this rare mix of charisma and humor and really relentless kind of preparation and a command of the facts that made him dangerous to the left and inspiring to young conservatives from kind of across the political right.

[A]

And he did it the right way, as you're saying. He did it the right way. And as the New York Times said to their credit, he was an advocate of debate and really focused on changing hearts and minds. Josh, Stu, were you viewers of Charlie Kirk know that he was a giant even for those who didn't watch him?

[B]

Yeah, I certainly would watch his debates. And what always struck me was not, just as Jesse said, his command of the facts and his charisma, but his elegance. And I've never seen a clip of him, as far as my knowledge extends, of him yelling or exuding any ad hominem attack. He really was respectful. He cared about the issues, not necessarily the people and the emotions. And he always remained very composed. And that's something that not a lot of people can say when they enter, like Jesse said, these hotbeds of progressive idealism. And so I think it's a huge loss for us that we lost that. That. That person who was able to exemplify conservative ideas and present them in a way that was palatable and calm and composed and. And it just troubles me that we no longer have that representative.

[C]

Well, look, I've seen videos of him yelling and tossing out ad hominem attacks, so we should paint the picture of the man in full here. But I actually think in many ways, the fact that he did that was an indicator of the fact that he was the one who was prepared for the political warfare that we were entering in the Trump era. For many young conservatives, I think he stood out as the. This larger than life figure because finally, there was someone who was fighting with the same toolkit that the hard left was that they encountered on these college campuses. And at the same time, Kirk was somebody who I think was intensely concerned with, well, what might happen in the absence of someone like him. One of his last interviews before his assassination was actually on Tucker Carlson's show, of all places. And he cautioned himself and said that he really thought of his political project in large part as preventing radical revolution. He was someone who was deeply concerned with online conspiratorial sometimes anti Semitic rabbit holes that young men could go down if left with sort of unchecked access to the Internet, paired with an intense grievance culture and an attitude that was sort of like, um, it's too hard to date, so I guess I just won't. It's too hard to find community in church. Um, so I'll just stay on my computer. Charlie was someone who, until the very end, cautioned aggressively against that instinct and was trying to build a healthier right. Whether or not you liked his strategy.

[A]

To get there, I want to bring you into this. As we try and parse this really, uh, senseless crime. We're trying to figure out the motivations. Over the weekend, his alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was arrested in part due to the help of his father. Details are still emerging and the motivations of the killer are not entirely sure, but there are clues, and one big clue is the engravings found on the bullet casings. And we don't want to be too salacious here, but, Stu, you're somebody who's done a lot of work in these extreme and radical circles online, heavily online. Can you help us parse a little bit and understand what these phrases were? I think there was maybe four phrases engraved on the bullets. Could you just take them through, Take us through them one by one and give us very quick hits on what they mean?

[D]

Yeah. So we have, we have two inscriptions that I would say are clearly anti fascist. One is very obviously, hey, Fascist Catch, followed by a video game input from Helldivers.

[A]

2.

[D]

The next one is Bella Chow, which has a long history, decades long, going back to the Second World War as an Italian anti fascist song. And you also have that being part of the anti fascist lexicon here in America. You have a media company in LA that Andy Ngo has noted shares the same name of Bella Chow Cinema. And then also Bella Chow was also used in the manifesto for the 2019 Tacoma Antifa gunman. So it's something that has been used quite recently. The next two inscriptions are a little bit tougher to parse and I think speaks more to what Jesse was talking about, where online radicalization going down weird rabbit holes where, you know, this is. Robinson was clearly someone who was on the Internet way too much. His own mother noted it back when he was doing a meme inspired Halloween costume in 2018. But these next two inscriptions are, if you read this, you're gay. Lmao. Which I just think was supposed to be this sort of like nihilistic, absurdist Internet Gen Z kind of humor. And then the next one, I think has. Is the inscription that's leaving the most people with a lot of confusion, which is. Notices bulge O W o. What's this? And this has origins and the furry community. Yeah. And. But I think it's.

[C]

You're gonna have to explain the furry community to our listeners. And I'm really. I'm really sorry to cast you with that scare.

[D]

Yeah. I would say the furry community is a form of sexual deviance. That is where people like to dress up as animals, anthropomorphic animals. You know, take that as you will, but.

[C]

And there is now credible reporting from a number of outlets that suggests that the murderers. The murderer was a furry himself and that his partner. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[A]

What's.

[C]

What's the story there, Stu?

[D]

Yes. So Robinson appears to be in a relationship with someone named Lance Luna Twigs. This is a MTF trans Possible femboy. And even a lot of the humor of that notices bulge on TikTok. A lot of people are openly saying this seems like someone who was a terminally online femboy. So, I mean, this is something that people.

[C]

What is a femboy?

[D]

Yeah. No, so with a MTF trans, this.

[C]

Is someone who is meaning male to female.

[D]

Yes, sorry. So male to female trans. That's someone who believes they are a woman. A femboy would be a man who just likes to be excessively feminine. So dressing up, you know, it's one of those distinctions that I personally eye roll at. But I think it's something that, as we try to actually understand the full scope of this terrible crime, we're gonna have to actually dive into the nastiness of these online communities and what they've.

[A]

And this comes as certain. Many groups are trying to, at the same time as they're celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, paint his killer as somebody from the right of the right, aligned with certain more radical factions of the right. But from what you've seen, Stu, including people on the left celebrating his death using these terms, this would appear to be terms associated with the left, including, but not exclusive to the antifa slogans.

[D]

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's disingenuous for anyone to push it as anything other than that.

[C]

I just want to say I appreciate Stu going down some of these ugly, dark Internet rabbit holes in an investigative capacity so that the rest of us know what the hell's going on.

[D]

Thank you. It's tough work sometimes.

[A]

Jesse, you helped to coin the term Luigism. Does this fit the profile of that same wave of political violence perhaps best embodied by the killing of the United Healthcare CEO by Luigi Maggione.

[C]

Well, when I wrote the piece about Luigism for City Journal, I should explain that I was referring to Luigi Mangione, the killer of Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO in Manhattan a few months ago. Yeah, I think that this does fit the profile as well. Because of the factors that Stu mentioned. I defined Luigism as an online meme driven ideology which says violence is justified in instances where it punishes capitalism, Zionism, or other kind of outward manifestations of success driven American capitalism. What is Charlie Kirk if not that? I mean, Charlie built Turning Point USA into the Republican Party's most effective ground game operation. So much so that in 2024, the Trump presidential campaign essentially outsourced all of its voter mobilization efforts to him and away from the traditional vehicle for such activities, like the Republican National Committee. Charlie was somebody who obviously owned the libs online plenty, but he. He did that. In addition to that, he showed up in hostile rooms and was really actively recruiting a new generation of voters and changing the electorate. So from our perspective as people who kind of work in and around politics and policy, Charlie is so unique because he's someone who, just a couple of years older than me, at 31 years old, rose to the top of the game in so many different areas of specialization. Right. Many of us will be over the moon in our professional circles if we succeed tremendously well at fundraising or at communications or at electoral politics. Charlie really dominated in all of those aspects, and beyond just that, built a behemoth of an organization that, like I kind of alluded to earlier, actually went on to far surpass the. Even the Republican Party nationally, the Republican National Committee, at least in terms of its importance to the American right.

[A]

Successful in all aspects of life and built a really beautiful and successful family and loving family and part of the.

[C]

Which is, of course, the most important aspect of life, if you ask him. Indeed, family and God.

[A]

Yeah, and the really disgusting part of the reaction from a lot on the left, a lot of people on the left, to Charlie Kirk's death, including making fun of his family. Josh, you're a spiritual person. This seems like a much deeper malady than the political. Can you just give me a quick, maybe very brief explainer and a take on why? What's happening? How could anyone celebrate the murdering of a man in front of his wife and children? What's wrong with these people?

[B]

Yeah, well, I think this goes back to a long legacy of history, you know, really started by Robespierre during the French Revolution, that terror is virtue. And it is this belief that has been passed down throughout the generations to Marx and Lenin and Mao, and now it has come to the shores of America. And the idea is that I think we have become so polarized in our politics. Part of it is because of the social media, you know, and that environment that Stu and Jesse are really talking about. But also, I think, a deeper cultural shift that began in the countercultural revolution of the 1960s. We have become so atomized and really inverted the moral underpinnings of good and evil, just as a cultural example. This might seem silly, but I think it does say a lot. One of the best and most well known movies last year was Wicked. And the central question in Wicked is, are people born evil or is evil thrust upon them? And I really think that says a lot about where we stand now and that that movie was so well known and ubiquitous and an Oscar nominee, and the idea that evil people are not responsible for their actions, but instead are products of a system. And we have turned around and basically outsourced our responsibility to then pin all of our problems on the system that has created the prosperity in the West. And we have taken that for granted, for many reasons. But at the end of the day, I think people have been raised with this ideology of taking things for granted, not recognizing how amazing and terrific the west has been overall, despite its imperfections, of course, but as a force against other forms of democracy. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others that have been tried from time to time. And I think we have forgotten here. We have forgotten that lesson.

[A]

Thank you. Thank you for that historical context. Josh and Stu, you've done great work chronicling a lot of the reaction to Kirk's death. Could you just maybe say a few words? Is this a really localized effect, or is this quite widespread?

[D]

I think it's really widespread. You know, when Trump was almost assassinated, you saw a wave of this, but we. It was.

[A]

It seems like, like, even to a greater degree than Trump's assassination.

[D]

Yeah. And. And the only thing it's reminiscent of is when Queen Elizabeth died. And this is way more gleeful. I. I would go so far as to say evil. And it's widespread in the sense that I'm seeing very young people celebrating it. Comedians, you're having teachers, professors, even someone. A colonel with the Department of War was celebrating it. You had a Canadian teacher force schoolchildren to watch Kirk be assassinated on repeat, which I don't even get Me started on that, but it's just, it's to a level that I never seen before in terms of barbarity and just extreme malice.

[A]

You, you, you would have expected to, you know, the, the attempted assassination of the President, but this is even greater whether because they succeeded and they is the wrong term, because the assassination, because it's unprecedented.

[C]

I mean presidents have been shot at, presidents have been assassinated, for better or worse. But the targeting of a guy, right, a 31 year old guy with a wife and kids who goes around and sets up a tent on college campuses and challenges anybody, whether it's a tenured academic professor or blue haired sociology major sophomore, to challenge him on the merits of the arguments. And this is a man with admittedly a very large platform, but he invited anybody to come and despite not having a platform, debate him on the merits, toe to toe. And that was what was perceived as so threatening that he had to be eliminated by this individual. And it is worth saying that at the end of the day, an individual killed Charlie Kirk. A culture that, as Josh talked about, I mean it is bizarre that so much of this nihilist kind of left driven nihilism, envy soaked rage is elite driven. That's very bizarre that there are in the movie. Josh reference is not the only one. I think there's another one with Leonardo DiCaprio coming out soon that plays with some of these same themes. You know, we just had, I think one of the acceptance. Hannah Einbender accepted her award at the Emmys last night and threw out, you know, kind of callously as part of her celebration Go Birds, Fuck ice and free Palestine.

[B]

As just on that. By the way, not only did she say those things, but the running joke throughout the Oscars, the Emmys, sorry, was if you go over 45 seconds, there was $100,000 donation to the Boys and Girls Club. And if you go over 45 seconds, they're going to deduct every second they're going to deduct $1,000. So her extra 15 seconds that she took to denounce all of her these political taboos that she doesn't like was the result. It resulted in $20,000 being taken away from actual children in America.

[C]

Yeah. And she said she'd make up for it. But I think the point is that, that that's why she does it, right. It's not about a direct positive impact on any people in particular. It's, it's because she knows that in the attention economy she will be rewarded for this tomorrow by people who both Hate her message. And for the crowds of people who support Omni cause, leftism, whatever the issue of the day is, I don't know how they feel about the Philadelphia Eagles, but on net that's why she's doing this. And we should be clear eyed about that and clear eyed about the fact that far more people have been attending vigils and have been impacted and affected by the death, the murder of Charlie Kirk than watched the Emmys last night.

[D]

And then just a quick.

[A]

But she's big. She can defend, you know, she's not going anywhere. Unfortunately, a lot of people who have been caught celebrating Charlie Kirk's death have been fired. I personally think that is a certainly appropriate reaction to somebody in the workplace celebrating the murder of another human being openly. But it does has raised questions about cancel culture coming from the right this time. Is there any merit to these claims in five words or less? Go around. Start with you, Stu. What do you think?

[D]

I don't think it's remotely cancel culture. I don't want to work with someone who is celebrating murder. And it violates your standard social media clause at any company.

[B]

Yeah, I think that, you know, cancel culture is Bret Weinstein getting fired because he didn't think whites should be kicked off campus or James Damore saying that there are differences between men and women, which are, you know, those are claims that are normal. And you could defend calling for, you know, the death of conservatives who you disagree with or celebrating. That is if you would go into an office and say that you would be fired on the spot. So I don't see why, just because you said it on social media now, you should be protected.

[C]

Well, five words or less is tough, but Josh and Stu blew right by that. So I'll try to keep it 20 words or less.

[A]

My players would tell us at least.

[B]

You don't lose $20,000 for this one.

[C]

Well, I'm not. I'm not denying money from the Boys and Girls Club, so I'll keep it. But I'll keep to five sentences or less nonetheless. Yeah, John Podhoretz from Commentary magazine was talking a little bit about how social media really just kind of unlocks the stream of consciousness in people's minds. People without discipline to prevent themselves from putting every thought that comes through their mind out into the public ether. Yeah, I mean, if somebody made a horrific comment like that during a staff meeting as a snide remark to one of their colleagues, you'd call it out and there'd immediately be a social cost for it. But because this stuff goes into the public record and everybody in the world is seeing it immediately. There's a temptation for people, themselves and villains to kind of dig into their heels with the most radical, egregious things that could possibly be uttered. It's not like someone bumps into you on a subway platform and you think, ugh, this jerk nearly got me killed. I hope he falls in front of the tracks, or something like that. Who among us hasn't had, you know, in a brief moment, some kind of ugly little thought? But the point is, it's a thought. And these people, when they take to social media platforms and they go and speak to the masses and they create a permission structure by which we say that political people with the wrong beliefs, like Charlie Kirk, can and should be killed and we should celebrate it, you're actually moving into action territory. It's no longer just a thought crime. Um, and yeah, you're. You're. You're causing serious damage to society, and there should be a social cost for it, up to and including termination from any private employer who cares about having employees that respect basic human decency.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. We're all in agreement. I. But, you know, it's easy when you're right. And so I think that's a good place to leave this conversation and move on to another heavy topic, the Charlotte stabbing, which happened last month but has continued to gain steam all around the United States. The story of somebody being arrested more than a dozen times being free to roam, has free to roam the streets and kill an innocent woman on a light rail transportation system has really made salient the point that disorder is a choice. It was said by the free press last week. Other people have said it. Disorder is a choice. We've been beating that drum for years here at the Manhattan Institute, long before I was even born. Josh, if disorder is a choice, why are our elected officials making it?

[B]

Yeah, it's a terrible tragedy that this keeps happening when it is so preventable. This man who murdered on the train, he was certainly able to be stopped had he just been put in prison and kept in prison, which he could have been. But I think progressive lawmakers and policymakers and activists have committed themselves to social justice over actual justice. And there's a few reasons why that is. I think a lot of it goes back to the anti Westernism or anti Americanism that we spoke about before and how it's a very general tendency in human nature to try to outsource responsibility. So you start again blaming the system for all the inefficiencies rather than individuals. And so what happens as a result is again, instead of saying this man is evil and needs to be put behind bars to prevent him from hurting others, you say, well, he's probably only evil because somebody caused him to be evil. And therefore, if we just are nice and we play nice and kind, then he'll be fine, he'll be fixed. But in the effort to create a utopia, we're really creating this dystopian society where there people don't feel safe. On the subway, people are always looking over their shoulder and it's a horrible thing of evil.

[A]

Right. The guy was severely mentally ill. He should have been in the institution, if not behind bars for his previous.

[B]

Crimes, which is why the involuntary commitment moves by the Trump administration, I think, are very beneficial for society. You can't have this misplaced sensitivity for someone who is clearly mentally ill and then hold all the people hostage, the regular citizenry, to not be able to live their lives commuting to work.

[A]

You spoke a little bit.

[C]

Yeah. Not just that, but also to tie this into the broader national environment around this issue and a lot of what's being talked about in the media. We're coming up on the 30 day mark of the National Guard's heavy presence here in Washington, D.C. and I think the response to that from the Democratic black female mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, who has kind of made her peace with it and expressed some actual positive enthusiasm about the impact that the National Guard presence in the nation's capital has had, which is inarguably positive. Crime rates are extremely low over the past month. And I'm seeing a lot of complaints from kind of left of center pundits on cable news and on social media who are making the argument that, oh, look, the National Guard has nothing to do, they're cleaning up some park in Dupont Circle or they're just standing around Union Station milling about. They have no capacity to, they have no, you know, authority to arrest people and they aren't doing so anyway. So what is the point of all this? Well, the point is the results. And that's kind of the backbone of the work of the Manhattan Institute. Right. Their very presence in these environments has a deterrent effect in and of itself. And if they're walking around beautifying public spaces and cleaning up trash in parks, that's laudable too, because there's also a mass amount of social science literature that tells us that when people live in cleaner, more well kept environments, less crime comes into those environments. And I think the smart retort that other voices on the left, or I guess some of the same voices have been pushing out is that, well, what about all these crime ridden cities in red states? And I would point out that those are, you know, the deep blue cities within red states. But nonetheless they have a good point. And what's happening in the coming days? But a National Guard deployment to Memphis, which has a terrible crime problem in a deep red state. And what's the reaction? Enthusiasm. There's a lot of excitement and warm feelings about the National Guard being deployed to Memphis, not just from the Republican statewide lawmakers in Tennessee, but also from people in the state. I saw one data point earlier. I think it was a poll that was fielded by one of the local news stations that said some 84% responded to the question of what do you think about bringing National Guard troops to Memphis with bring em on rather than keep them out. So there's a lot of excitement and enthusiasm about this, even in red America. I know I certainly feel that way. So this is a good sign and.

[A]

It definitely is a good sign. And there's clear Democratic support for fighting crime. People hate crime, they wanna be safe. It's been proven, as you said in that poll, Jesse, it's been proven on the ground in places like San Francisco where progressive prosecutors have been thrown out. On the other side of the equation, inside the offices of prosecutors, there's an anti Democratic element. Last week in City Journal, Jason Johnson from the Law Enforcement Defense Fund exposed how progressive prosecutors were influenced by this consulting group called the Wren Collective, which offered free consulting services basically to assist progressive prosecutors in defending choices, not to prosecute people. Messaging, communications, help. They allege in the report that the Ren Collective influenced sentencing decisions in these groups. How do we square this very powerful, well funded group that was and other groups like them who are enmeshed in prosecutors offices across the country with the Democratic choice that people really don't want crime and they want their streets cleaned up so very briefly. Maybe Josh, you could give us a little thought on this.

[B]

I think that there's again, it goes back to this idea, but there's also, I guess people tend to take for granted the progress that is made during these, you know, these periods of destruction in our cities. And so they, for example, you know, after the terrible years of the 70s in the, in the United, in America, in sorry, New York, we ended up with Rudy Giuliani and eventually Mike Bloomberg. And then sort of moving after that, you get to de Blasio and then de Blasio creates Adams and then Adams creates Mamdani. And so we kind of are going on this rollercoaster of, you know, the safety of the conservative years allows for the progressive groups to come back in and say, well look, the cities are running great, so now try progressivism again. And I think that I don't know why we, we keep falling for the trap. It happened even in Portland. You know, they elected a DA who decriminalized drugs and it didn't work. And now they're starting to go more towards conservative ideas. And so it just seems like we're on this never ending rollercoaster where we try the progressive ideas and then eventually we realize it destroys the city and then we bring back in the conservative ideas. People say, wow, everything is great. Let's try the, you know, progressive ideas again.

[A]

I want to get you Kerry.

[C]

Let me posit something specifically in response to Jason Johnson's piece on the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and shadowy ties to Democratic Consulting Group. This is not new, okay? And this is a symptomatic problem with Democratic Party politics. It's why a lot of people from this ideological camp that I actually hope succeeds in the abundance crowd which says we need to be a little bit more market oriented, we need to be a little bit less burdensome with regulations and burying things in environmental reviews because we believe in the power of government. This is a left of center political movement for the most part. Enthusiasm from folks who like government and want it to do more things about making it easier for government to do more in those things. But they're never going to succeed because there is a massive army of extremely well funded ideological groups, non governmental organizations, not for profit organizations that exist to muck up the works, that fund people who are intensely ideological, who wouldn't have marketable skills to take to other private sector jobs and who work in a kind of pure permanent extra governmental bureaucracy that makes it incredibly difficult for the Democratic Party and its multiple arms to do to, to respond to the fact that a majority of Democratic voters, for example, don't want biological men playing in women's sports despite the fact that their own voters agree with that core proposition. The politicians in that party don't have the permission structure to move away from that per position because there is an army of groups heavily embedded into their politics and even more importantly the funding of those politicians campaigns and which says no, you need to take the maximalist ideological position and we're not going to give you any wiggle room on that front. It's a very similar story with crime and it's why the Democratic Party has moved so far left, farther left than the people who at least used to make up the core of its voters, ethnics who live in urban enclaves and who it also merits saying are disproportionately the victims of violent crime in these cities. It's a lot easier to not get too worked up about crime in urban centers if you're taking an Uber back to the suburbs.

[B]

At the end of the day, Andrew Cuomo won the support of all of the lower income voters, while Zoran Mandani, who wants to, you know, basically abolish the police in favor of mental health professionals. Although he doesn't say defund the police anymore.

[C]

Anymore being the operative word there.

[B]

Exactly. And you know, all the high income voters voted for him. And I think a lot of it has to do with, to piggyback on that, that this starts in the world of higher education, which is where Zoram Mandani was made. He is a professional protester turned politician and those are his followers, those are the people in his inner circle, and those are the people who are influencing the policy. And it's no coincidence that a lot of higher education is also dictated by this kind of secret NGO class of professional protesters and professor activists who are more interested in ideological, you know, agendas over statistics, data, actual history, whatever it is. And they kind of are pushing this, this very, you know, anti establishment vision for us. And it is, again, it's ruining our cities. And like Jesse said, it's not good, forget the Republican Party. It's not good for the Democratic Party who, who needs to be moderate if it wants to get more.

[C]

It's a rise and takeover of kind of global citizens. People who are sort of rootless, not particularly committed to an American project in any unique sense, who don't believe in anything particularly phenomenal about America, who aren't American exceptionalists in that sense. People who were maybe raised abroad, went to school abroad, educated abroad or whatever, and just sort of have the same progressive universalist value system that leads them to conclusions of support for things like open borders or to be American. Enthusiasm for Hamas winning out over a Western ally in the Middle east, it's all part of that same ideology. I think that's insight for them.

[A]

Set it up well that on the one hand, you have these opposing interests of a kind of permanent class maybe running the show, at least in a lot of prosecutors offices and NGOs, and a voter base that is often opposed to it. Thinking about how we combat, how we give people back the choice of give democratic legitimacy back to legal offices, legal authorities, which has really been lost, and giving people the real choice, a say in the policies that they want. How do we do this? One approach has been to raise the salience of issues. That's why this Irina Zarutska story has become so big. It's raising the salience of these crime policies. People are trying to ramp it up even more. Tech CEO, Irish tech CEO out of SF Yoga. McCabe has announced a campaign to give away $500,000 to paint murals of the Charlema victim Irina Zyritska all over the nation to serve as a reminder of the costs of progressive crime policies. What do we make about this approach? Let's wrap this up, but yes or no, do we like this good? Good or bad? Is this a positive approach?

[C]

Who are you expecting a no from on painting murals? I mean, come on, Kerry, you're in the house here, and you're asking, like, the least divisive questions.

[A]

You know, public art, maybe if it's done right, that'll be my hedge. If it's done poorly, I don't like.

[B]

Okay, yeah, as long as it's not brutalist.

[A]

As long as it's not AI Slop, I'll be okay with that.

[D]

I think it's a good start. I think it's one tactic, but, you know, you need way more education focused, you know, avenues to really bring this to the average person. I think it's a good. It's beautiful. It's great. I love the spirit of it. But we need even more to fight this because it's. It feels like a losing battle sometimes.

[C]

I think I'm good with it, even if it is AI Slop. Honestly, I saw Ted Cruz tweet out a picture of Charlie, Kirk and Irina sitting together in that bus seat, and I was moved. I don't know. I'm. I'm. I'm a sucker for it, even when it is AI Slop. So I'm. I'm. I'm. I'm all for it.

[B]

Yeah. I think I would rather it not be AI. I just like the. The edifying nature of traditional art. But I do think that it also requires not. I think, number one, culturally, it is important to have guardrails and to create a culture again that has a stigma around celebrating this type of ideas or policies, whatever it is. But it also requires, like Stu said on the ground policy against a lot of what is happening in higher education.

[A]

Thanks, Shash. After these two tragic events in the past couple of weeks, I was reminded of a piece that you wrote, Josh, not for City Journal, but for real, clear Books about C.S. lewis, whom our audience may be familiar with as the author of children's books, the Chronicles of Narnia. But you make the case that Lewis was one of the 20th century's greatest intellectual opponents of nihilism, pessimism, and spiritual death. Josh, maybe that's your answer, but just as we're facing these dark times, I want to give everyone the opportunity to maybe make a recommendation, A book, piece of literature, song, art, something you like, that gives you strength, hope, spiritual fortitude in these dark Times. Josh, is C.S. lewis your answer?

[B]

Yeah, C.S. lewis, C.S. lewis and Tolkien. I just find that their myth and folklore could, you know, mixed together with the sort of didactic vision of. Of bravery and courage and strength. I find them very inspiring and uplifting, and I highly recommend anything that each of those two have written.

[D]

I am a fan of Virgil's the Aeneid. It starts in the middle of things where the Trojans have just lost the war. They're scattered, and they're trying to find purpose again. And Aeneas is rallying his men, and he gives the advice. An hour will come with pleasure to relate your sorrow, pass as benefits of fate. And I think there's a powerful lesson there about even in dark, terrible times, you know, this is an opportunity to rise up, be stronger than ever, and to, you know, use it as inspiration, even if it's, you know, a tragedy, like losing a titan, like Charlie Kirk. You know, what can we do to honor his legacy and make something positive out of something terrible?

[C]

Yeah, well, even though I'm not the religious authority on this particular panel, you know, I don't know if our audience is fully aware of this, but Josh is actually a ordained rabbi. But, you know, I go to an old classic. I go to the Book of psalms, specifically Psalm 23. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for you are with me. Your rod and your staff encourage me. You know, I play the hits. I play the hits.

[B]

So they're hits for a reason.

[A]

I like it, Jesse. It's not cliche. It's just good. I've always liked, as a whole book, to borrow Josh's answer for Whom the Bell Tolls by Hemingway. I know he fought on arguably the wrong side of the Spanish Civil War, but I think it's a great. It's a great story of courage and willingness to fight for your ideals in the face of. In the face of dark times. And so that is your reading list listeners for next time. Thank you very much for joining us on the City Journal podcast. Thank you.

[C]

Start with the Book of Psalms, by the way, when you're working through that reading list, it's a good, it's a good starting point. It's where Charlie Kirk would have wanted you to kick things off.

[A]

That's true. It's place you can read them in the order that they came out and you'll go Psalms Virgil or no. Yeah, I guess Psalms Virgil for Whom the bell Tolls and then CS Lewis. So that's the order to read it in. It's called the Great Books folks. Great Books canon. Alan Bloom would be proud. Thank you for joining us so much, Josh, Stu and Jesse. And thank you listeners for joining City Journal podcast. Please remember to like subscribe and comment. Let us know what you want to hear about. Helps us grow the conversation. Thank you very much and we'll see you next time. Bye Bye.