Let's talk about two groups.
One of them is about power. They want to rule, and they want to ensure that the systems are aligned such that there is no possibility for their power to be challenged. They spout platitudes about this and that, but in practice, their highest -- actually, their sole -- priority is maintaining power for decades to come.
Now, "power" is not "leadership." Being the ruler doesn't mean you know how to lead the people. Nor does it mean that you know how to govern. Examples of that abound, including a few recent Democrat presidents. And when the people start complaining because their leaders won't (or can't) even fix potholes or keep them safe, rulers like that respond by suppressing dissent and fixing elections.
They don't believe in the high-minded liberal ideas they speak of, like equality and justice; they use them to divide their constituents into identity classes. Then they claim that those groups need to vote for them because only they can protect the obscure interests of their identity class. When they're elected, of course, they do nothing for those classes, but that doesn't seem to matter -- fixing problems is not why they want power.
Their leverage with these groups is to convince them that government is the solution to everything. If the people think they need lots of government, then such a group can use that to justify vast expansion of government -- lots of government jobs filled by people beholden to the group for paying their salaries.
That group utterly despises democracy. It's obvious why; in a democracy (or a Constitutional republic such as the USA) elected leaders who can't govern are subject to being voted out of office on a regular basis. They can vote in a leader who can DOGE many of those useless government jobs. That's a risk they cannot afford.
The second group is about governance. Their goal is for the streets to be safe, for people to have jobs, to strive to be their best. They want criminals off the streets and in jail. They want a stable currency, for mail to be delivered on time, and to be able to protect our borders. They want government to be constrained by the tenets of their nation's Constitution, limited to only the powers granted it there.
They need the power to do all that, sure, but that power is the necessary evil to be able to accomplish what is needed to achieve that goal -- a goal, again, for the citizens, not for the rulers.
If you're familiar with the notion that "You only get to vote for communists once", then it's no secret who those groups are, and the first group, the left, are the ones to fear.
We fear them, because they combine dictatorial autocracy with managerial incompetence. We fear them, because once they get enough power to be able to fix elections, or at least affect them as was done in 2020 by mass implementation of corrupt mail-in and mail-out ballots, it's extraordinarily difficult to get them out of power.
But they have fear, too.
They fear Democratic institutions like well-regulated elections, because a free people will never vote for them, or if somehow they get in as in 2008, the people realize they're poor at actually governing and vote them out -- see the 2010 House flip as an example.
But more than that, they fear free speech and open dialogue. Free speech is anathema to the left, whether in the USA, or South America, or China, Russia or wherever. When people can speak, they're going to say their version of the Emperor's New Clothes -- the left has no ability to lead, to solve problems, or to protect the citizens; they're only after power, and they do nothing whose goal is not to seize and expand that power.
The left cannot have that.
They fear open dialogue as well. They do not want debate, because they have an Achilles heel in any discussion -- their governance ideas have never worked anywhere. Socialism is a failure, because it disincentives people from working to improve their lot, which leaves them uninspired and relying on government for the basic needs that they should be pursuing themselves.
When people debate, they start to learn to think critically. One guy says, "Poor this oppressed class, poor that oppressed class ..." and the other says, "But look what your policies have done to hurt those so-called oppressed classes; you have been allegedly trying for 60 years and they're all on welfare and not working!" Reasonable people hear that and start thinking. Thinking? Critically? The left can't have that.
Debate is so dangerous to the left that they have to take the most extreme measures to stop it. Taking over the school systems and teachers unions, to ensure that children are not taught to think critically, has been their first step. Working to put overwhelmingly leftist professors on campuses is another.
So when someone goes to campuses nationwide and takes thousands of questions in a rational way, when he encourages people who disagree with him to come to the front of the line to challenge him, that is a severe danger to the left. It is a danger that they cannot allow to continue.
Donald Trump is a danger to the left, of course. But Charlie Kirk was a bigger threat to them, because he was young (and would be a force for decades), brilliant, in tune with youth, and was successfully engaging with the very people the left needed to be meek sheep for them. So they had to silence him.
This was a political murder. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise. The truth as offered by Charlie Kirk was the biggest danger to the left, and they did what the left does.
Copyright 2025 by Robert Sutton. Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.