On September 10, 2025, right-wing podcaster and political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while at a political debating event. Conservative media outlets and online communities rapidly reframed Kirk’s death as proof of ideological persecution, elevating him into a symbolic figure whose loss demanded collective grief, anger, and political mobilization. At the same time, many liberal commentators reacted with alarm, treating both the rhetoric surrounding Kirk and the public response to his killing as signs of growing extremism. Kirk’s death quickly transcended its original meaning, becoming a concept of hope for some, and a topic of conflict for many.

Kirk wasn’t just controversial because of his death, however. While alive, he was a polarizing figure, using his charisma and character to draw many young individuals to conservative ideology but often alienating entire groups of people through his speeches or actions. He became a leading figure for all those who shared his point of view, setting the stage for the tragedy felt in the conservative community upon his loss.

Because of the recency of this event, scholarly work has yet to be put forth as to the significance of Kirk’s death, and an in-depth analysis of the effects on the community and politics overall has not been conducted. Despite the lack of official research, there has been a significant outpouring of public opinion in reference to his murder, and the public reaction online and in partisan news spaces is already shaping political identity formation and inter-party dynamics. This paper examines the relationship between Charlie Kirk as a modern political martyr and his perceived influence on the community surrounding him, as well as the extent to which the induced community mindset affects political attitudes in the United States. By examining a range of opinion-edition articles, research papers, social media personalities, and prominent government figures, this paper argues that Charlie Kirk’s killing has been transformed by conservative media into a political martyrdom narrative that weaponizes collective victimhood, and this narrative is accelerating polarization by framing ideological opponents as threats and contributing towards democratic decline.

Charlie Kirk as a Political Martyr

Before discussing Kirk’s effects on the society surrounding him, we must first understand what a martyr truly is in the political context. My theory is taken from Andrew Murphy, who provides a clear definition of political martyrdom that we will use throughout this argument. Murphy outlines that a political martyr is created through three components: a death of “unnatural circumstances”; consecration of that death through a narrative shaped by a community, often tying political meaning to the death; and transmission of that consecrated death through “processes of commemoration” to spur political mobilization across time. Death is a necessary aspect of this definition, as it allows the martyr’s life story to be stopped at a definitive point and rely exclusively on the actions of others to stay relevant. Additionally, death via unnatural circumstances is an important detail, as it provides a sense of unjustness and sparks motivation for action. Kirk undoubtedly meets the requirements for death, but it is the transmission and consecration that require closer examination.

To truly see if a person’s story is being passed around and glorified, one must look at active conversations in the community. Fox News, a right-wing, influential news group, published an article commenting on Kirk being posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In their article, they echoed Donald Trump’s claims that “like those martyrs before him”, Kirk’s killing brought about a great discussion about him and his ideals, and was motivating the conservative party to fight for those beliefs. Even though this article was meant to be objective and purely report the events of the ceremony, by selecting to quote Trump calling Kirk a martyr and repeatedly reinforcing the idea that Kirk was heroic, the article effectively consecrates him as a heroic figure and encourages the transmission of his story for political action. This phenomenon can be seen across all types of right-wing media— tiktoks standing in solidarity with Kirk, podcasters, op-ed journalists, and more— and further confirms that Kirk has been painted as a modern political martyr.

From Martyrdom to Conservative Victimhood

Martyrs, while extremely powerful images for a cause, do not have the ability to create change. For that, they rely on the community that is martyring them— a community that often forms around the idea of collective victimhood. To understand this idea further, we turn to Tami Jacoby, who defines victimhood as a type of collective identity that forms around a feeling of persecution or shared injustice. To identify with a victimhood mentality is to believe that you or your group of individuals is at serious risk of harm at the hands of an outside group, instilling fear and a need for action throughout an entire community.

Alex Jones, the conservative podcaster and social media personality, stated in a live stream that he believed the left wanted to “put a bullseye on Trump” and all of “his supporters” following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Jones’s framing shifts Kirk’s death from an isolated act of violence to a collective assault on conservatives as a whole. This type of comment, while on the more extreme end of current discourse, models the exact behaviors characteristic of victimhood. Stating the belief that there is a “bullseye” on a group of people— in this case, Trump’s supporters (who are traditionally conservative, just like Kirk’s support base)— demonstrates the feeling of group persecution that has arisen as a result of Kirk’s martyrization. Jones continued to comment on this perceived injustice, stating that the left has been “calling for violence” and that America is now “in a war.” This type of fear-inducing rhetoric takes victimhood to an entirely new level, and while victimhood can be observed in a variety of contexts— refugees, victims of religious or racial persecution, or even self-identified groups like political parties— the true harm of victimhood is when it turns competitive.

Competitive victimhood develops when opposing groups each claim that they are the “true” victims of injustice and therefore morally entitled to retaliation, recognition, or special protection. Competitive victimhood differs from traditional victimhood in that while traditional victimhood deals with a feeling of injustice and fear, competitive victimhood weaponizes these feelings into retaliation and increased feelings of separation from the outgroup.

Increasingly, this competitive mentality has been observed in relation to Kirk’s death. For example, prominent conservative figures have taken to social media, claiming that “The Left are terrorists” and to fear because any right-leaning individual “could be next” in line for an act of political violence. Harmful statements like these have prompted retaliatory commentary from the left, as can be seen in the left-leaning MSNBC opinion article claiming that Kirk’s death brought down an “ideological crackdown on Americans” at the hands of the Trump administration and its MAGA followers. The article posits that left-leaning speech that counters Kirk in any way is coming under fire, unfairly targeting individuals from more liberal ideologies and creating the same feeling of ideological persecution and fear. This reciprocal escalation, with each side insisting that the other is the true aggressor, demonstrates how competitive victimhood unfolds. By framing their opponents as inherently violent and positioning themselves as the sole “true” victims, this worldview pushes polarization and hostility; examining this through the lens of martyrdom and competitive victimhood reveals how Kirk’s image and death are repeatedly mobilized to define an entire political party in reductive terms and to reinforce a broader culture of fear.

Martyrdom, Victimhood and its Influence

Kirk’s posthumous image matters because martyrdom accelerates political polarization— an effect documented in both historical cases and contemporary research. By understanding the political dynamics of victimhood and martyrization, we can begin to more accurately interpret and even predict political events and sociopolitical climate after a martyr figure has been created. In his paper on Martyr Construction and the Politics of Death, Jesus Casquete offers an important opinion: “Politics is practiced by the living, but sometimes also built upon the dead.” Casquete outlines the idea that political martyrs have the potential to severely influence the politics of any given government, often in ways that intensify authoritarian tendencies and suppress dissent. He offers examples from Nazi Germany, including the case of a young man killed by communist sympathizers who was transformed into a central symbol of the Nazi movement. Elevated into an object of collective worship, his example illustrates how the martyr narrative helped legitimize and popularize the party’s ideological initiative in the eyes of the public.

Casquete also discusses several “discursive pillars” he observed in the construction of a harmful martyr. The first involves the presentation of an individual as someone who has died for the sake of the community, and Charlie Kirk has undoubtedly been presented as dying for protecting conservative ideals. The second is pushing a rhetoric of the community, and painting the opposition as a “sea of enemies” who cannot be reasoned with and must instead be “hated to the point of death.” This second pillar is synonymous with the competitive victimhood behaviors previously observed as a result of Kirk’s death, and contributes to the politically mobilizing ideals that are currently being fostered in the conservative community. While the contexts are vastly different, Casquete’s framework remains valuable because it highlights the rhetorical patterns that help transform a figure into a galvanizing political martyr.

These rhetorical pillars don’t stay symbolic, however. When communities adopt these pillars— framing their martyr as noble and their opponents as existential enemies— they create the conditions for competitive victimhood and intensified polarization. These patterns reshape how groups perceive threat, blame, and legitimacy, which is precisely what contemporary polarization research warns against.

Political Polarization in the U.S.

For something to be polarizing, it must be restrictive and sharply divide two groups or categories. The term fits nicely when keeping in mind competitive victimhood, and relates directly to political polarization, or individuals’ increasing alignments with more extreme political positions as opposed to moderate viewpoints. In modern American politics, the two-party system enables political polarization, making it easier for any individual to categorize themself within the confines of one political group or another. Chloe Nguyen’s research on competitive victimhood has revealed that both Democrats and Republicans claim to feel “victimized by the out-party,” and that both groups “evidenced high levels of competitive victimhood.” Through this research, we can summarize that competitive victimhood, spurred on by martyrdom, increases instances of polarization.

The phenomenon is not just theoretical, however; a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk on the floor of the House of Representatives quickly turned into a shouting match about gun control and school shootings, with Republican representatives shouting that “you [Democrats] all caused this” and Democrats crying for Republicans to “pass some gun laws.” Public discourse in the days following Kirk’s death reflected the same pattern— anger, distrust, and a growing sense of characterizing opposition as inhospitable and the enemy. Social media and news outlets began to paint Kirk’s death as less of a tragedy, and more as growing evidence of the opposing party’s hostility. The fact that a simple moment to honor a political martyr escalated so quickly into blame and division demonstrates the true influence that political martyrdom has and illustrates the real-world implications of victimization and polarization.

Nguyen’s research also discussed the extent to which political polarization affects American society, and the main result her research found was that increased polarization heavily correlated with “support for anti-democratic policies”; in other words, being more polarized led to an increased acceptance of democratic degradation. This research reflects the historical precedent of martyrdom in non-democratic regimes outlined in Casquete’s work, and is also being realized in the wake of Kirk’s martyrdom. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez commented on the events that transpired in the House, stating that Kirk’s assassination “risks an uncorking of political chaos and violence that we cannot risk in America.” Ocasio-Cortez’s warning aligns with the research—the behavior demonstrated in the House is highly reflective of the increasingly polarized attitudes developing in Americans, fueled by the image of Charlie Kirk. While we cannot definitively say what will happen in American politics, we can already see the effects that Kirk’s death is having on partisan mentalities. Using the predictive power of scientific and historical analysis, we can interpret and forecast the extent of these effects— and if tensions continue to rise, the U.S. risks accelerated democratic backsliding and decay.

Alternative Viewpoints

By now, we have confirmed Charlie Kirk’s status as a martyr and outlined how his image has induced competitive victimhood in the communities supporting him. However, the question arises— does victimhood always turn competitive? Jihyun Jeong makes a vehement case responding to the former, arguing that victimhood can serve as a “positive political resource” by encouraging victims to “transform their victimization into a political agenda.” Jeong analyzes how victims can use a collective victimhood identity to gain empowerment and push for positive political change through the lens of the Korean Solidarity Against Disability Discrimination activists.

Jeong is not wrong about victimhood being a way to gain political power; indeed, supporters of Charlie Kirk have garnered attention and sympathy from the federal government in the weeks since his death. Where Jeong’s argument falters, however, is in using disability activists as a metonym for all victimhood identities. In her case study, individuals enter a collective victimhood identity through circumstance, not choice, creating a shared experience broadly recognized across political and social contexts. In contrast, self-ascribed victimhood—as seen among those who interpret Kirk’s assassination as evidence that their political group is under threat—emerges from a narrative of persecution rather than lived condition. This form of victimhood not only diverges sharply from circumstance-based identities, but also heightens partisan division by positioning one political party as uniquely persecuted. Such dynamics illustrate how the juxtaposition of political groups against one another contributes to competitive victimhood and polarization.

Many may still struggle with the idea that martyrs are negatively viewed, giving rise to the question of whether all martyrs are inherently bad. After all, martyrs such as George Floyd or Harvey Milk galvanized movements for justice and reform rather than polarization. To understand why some martyr narratives become harmful while others become unifying, we can turn to Casquete’s third and final discursive pillar— the embellishment of a martyr through exaggerated virtues and a distorted image of who they were. Take Floyd, for example. His life reflected the struggles of “systemic racism in America” and was unjustly killed through police brutality. He then went on to become a symbol of racial injustice and a rallying point for the Black Lives Matter movement, making him a martyr that symbolized in death what he struggled through while alive.

Harvey Milk followed this same pattern, going from a leader and activist for the LGBTQ+ community to a “gay rights icon” after his untimely assassination. Both Milk and Floyd are associated with the beneficial influence a martyr can bring because they were hailed for in death the same qualities that they stood for in life.

Kirk, although hailed as an icon by the conservative community, does not follow this same pattern. Currently, conservative discourse rests on the injustice at his brutal assassination but fails to take into account Kirk’s own opinions on gun violence. In fact, he is on record stating that it’s “worth to have…some gun deaths” in order to protect the “God-given rights” outlined in the Second Amendment. Considering that Charlie Kirk himself championed gun rights at the expense of human life, it’s a clear misrepresentation of his character to paint his posthumous image without this core belief.

Similarly, Kirk is being portrayed throughout social media and conservative news as a hero who “died for free speech”; however, the conservative youth organization he founded was notorious for attempting to suppress anti-conservative speech. One such instance was the “Professor Watchlist”, created to “limit what professors and teachers say” and push conservative rhetoric in schools. While alive, Charlie Kirk advocated for censorship and limiting oppositional ideas, and it is only while dead that his image has been synonymized with the freedom of speech. These distortions exemplify Casquete’s third pillar: Kirk’s posthumous image elevates selective virtues while erasing core aspects of his real ideology, solidifying his role as a harmful martyr in contemporary politics.

Conclusion

September 10, 2025 was undoubtedly a day that changed the social and political climate in the United States. Since the violent assassination of Charlie Kirk, a wave of panic and polarization has ensued in the US, leaving questions of short- and long-term effects overall. Through Andrew Murphy’s analysis of political martyrdom, we can effectively define Kirk as a political martyr; through Tami Jacoby’s work, we understand how Kirk’s martyrization has induced behaviors of competitive victimhood in conservative communities across the United States. Taking into account scientific and past historical research, we can make a prediction as to how these evidenced behaviors of political martyrdom will lead to further polarization, and potentially even contribute to democratic decline. It’s important to understand that not all martyrs contribute to the worsening of sociopolitical tensions, but the disparity in beliefs and image with which Kirk is being portrayed, as well as the community claiming victimhood around his death, make him a polarizing figure in the field of modern American politics.

The significance of Kirk’s martyrization lies not in the man himself but in the broader dynamics his death illuminates: the influence martyrized figures can have, how communities form identities around competitive victimhood, and how democratic norms erode when both sides view each other as existential enemies. Recognizing this pattern is essential not only for understanding the aftermath of Kirk’s death but for identifying and predicting patterns of democratic backsliding following a major political assassination. When societies turn political figures into martyrs, especially ones whose legacies are deeply fracturing, they risk transforming grief into grievance and debate into division. Kirk’s case illustrates how easily martyrdom can be manipulated to fragment societies and why such narratives demand critical scrutiny before they are allowed to transcend death.