The American Right has its martyr — what’s next?

Opinion

Every revolution needs heroes and martyrs. Heroes to follow and martyrs to look up to.

MAGA is no exception. The Make America Great Again movement is undeniably a second American revolution. It is upending the country’s democratic foundations in the name of Donald Trump, its hero. Charlie Kirk has now become its first martyr.

The 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, conservative podcaster, influencer and organizer was a prominent MAGA voice. He was a key catalyst for turning out youth voters for Trump. Kirk’s social media charisma and persuasive ability to debate opposing views made him a star in MAGA-land. His “Prove Me Wrong” campus tours, where he openly debated and challenged liberal opinions, gained him rancour and respect, acolytes and enemies.

America’s historically violent democracy and legacy of political assassinations have given it ample opportunity to manufacture martyrdom narratives. This is necessary since in its truest form, martyrdom is voluntary. It is an act of individual agency, of positive will, to draw attention to a cause or belief. It comes from the Greek word ‘martur’, which means to witness or attest. In short, true martyrs choose to die. And their motives for doing so are obvious, not obscure.

No surprise then that religion has been the main catalyst for martyrs throughout the centuries. Islam and Christianity are replete with examples of adherents dying willingly for their faith. So many, that they blend into the miasma of centuries of one war of religion over another. Religious belief was to die for, or alternatively escape from, as the “old worlds” populated the “new,” then and now.

Political martyrdom, dying because of one’s political beliefs, comes unwillingly but no less brutally. The American ledger is long: Presidents Kennedy, Lincoln and Garfield were killed; assassination attempts made on six others. Then there was Sen. Robert Kennedy, Louisiana Gov. Huey Long, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and this year, Minn. Speaker Melissa Hortman.

Charlie Kirk’s shocking and callous murder, relayed live and in graphic repetitive form on the same social media platforms that gave him such prominence, will qualify him for a MAGA-martyr moniker. Attempts to elevate him to this status have already begun.

The highest officials in the land gave voice to their grief and outrage. The president himself announced his passing. Air Force Two, the plane of the vice-president, flew his casket home. The White House ordered all U.S. flags flying on government buildings to half-mast. A resolution to grant him lying-in-state privileges in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building, where American presidents are ceremonially honoured, was introduced. The high priest of MAGA, Steve Bannon, blessed his memory, calling him “the America First martyr.”

In this manner, martyrdom is institutionalized and memorialized by the state on behalf of the state. Because politics exists in the contested arena for public opinion and political power, martyrdom is an irresistible tool for any political power or movement. The individual is bequeathed to the nation buttressing a desired national narrative to serve a larger national purpose. But which narrative? And what purpose?

Assigning purpose to a leader’s death is key to creating the martyrdom narrative. For the longest time, the Republican Party was called the party of Lincoln, giving him and his party the mantle of emancipation and preservation of the Union. By contrast, Jackie Kennedy, grieved about her husband’s death in Dallas, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist.” She quickly spun the tale of JFK’s White House years as the “golden age of Camelot” to compensate. It endures.

Immediacy matters more than truth in creating martyrdom narratives. Kirk was a victim of the “radical left,” according to Trump, assigning responsibility within hours not to an unidentified lone gunman but to his political opponents. Top Republican and MAGA figures took up the refrain. Elon Musk posted that “the left is the party of murder.” MAGA personality Laura Loomer called for Trump to crack down on the left “with the full force of government.” Turning Point USA contributor Jack Posobiec called for “retribution.”

With the narrative now being set — Kirk was killed for being conservative by “The Left” — it remained for the purpose of his martyrdom to be fixed. Two competing purposes have emerged; one radical and one civil. The radical purpose comes from the MAGA militant. They want to use Kirk’s murder to wage war on their political opponents — Democrats — using government instruments to punish them for their sins and eliminate them from political life. The civil purpose finds expression in “Disagree Better,” a non-partisan national governors’ initiative to promote respectful dialogue to bridge political differences.

Which will ultimately prevail is uncertain. Feelings, not facts, will decide. MAGA repeatedly blames “The Left” as the source of political violence in America. So, attacks and punishment by “The Right” are justified. The facts prove otherwise. The Anti-Defamation League’s Centre on Extremism tracks murders and violence by domestic terrorists tied to extremist ideologies or movements. Two facts stand out. First, extremist murders fell from 2022 to 2024 from 28 to 13. Second, all those murders, in each of those years, were committed by right-wing extremists.

But 2025 feels different because it is different. America is in the throes of a radical presidency bent on revolutionizing the country’s institutions for its own purposes. Which turning point Kirk’s murder and MAGA martyrdom will mark — radical or civil — remains to be seen.

David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.