Two senators on Charlie Kirk’s death, their own security and cancel culture
(CBS, KYMA) - Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) spoke with Major Garrett on Face the Nation Sunday.
They spoke about the death of Charlie Kirk due to gun violence and the struggle to achieve bipartisanship in Washington and across the nation.
"The brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk, while he was in the middle of a debate on a college campus, goes to the very heart of what it means to be American, of the importance of the First Amendment, of free speech, and someone like Charlie Kirk, who was a nationally known figure, who dedicated himself to debate, to engagement with his political adversaries, should not have paid with his life for the opportunity to speak out. No matter how much I might deeply disagree with his political views, the idea that he would be killed in such a grotesque and public way has to bring all of us to reflect about how hard it's getting, because the internet is an accelerant. It is driving extremism in our country. It's driving us apart, left and right, and leaders like Senator Lankford, Governor Cox, have an obligation and an opportunity to join with leaders from my party in urging folks to set aside any thought of political violence and to respect each other, even as we keep advancing our political differences through discourse."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)
Garrett followed by by asking Senator Lankford if he, at times, feels as if his appeal "for better angels, calmer rhetoric, more bipartisanship, is shouting into an internet void," and the senator said:
"It is, because the algorithm pushes people to the most extreme. The algorithm is all- on social media is always pushing who's the angriest, who's the loudest, who says the craziest thing, that's what gets repeated over and over and over again. So anytime that there is cogent dialogue or an issue on something where people may disagree, but they're having a civil conversation on it, that gets pushed aside, towards someone that's just angry and focused. This is somewhat human nature, to be able to say, we disagree. We find areas where we disagree, and we try to be able to solve those. The best way to be able to solve those is through words, talking it out, finding an opportunity to be able to do it. But I would tell you, this kind of anger is as old as Cain and Abel. To be able to go back and say, I'm mad at you, so I'm going to try to destroy you, whether it's destroy you online, or to try to humiliate you, or to cancel you, or to, in this case, try to murder you publicly. It is painful to be able to see that part of humanity, and it is better for us to be able to push better angels."
The senators talked about their own security and safety in today's political climate.
"am attentive to my own security, how about that, for myself and for my family. My staff and I have to- have to talk through each public event, but we've had to do that for a while. As you may know well, there have been 14,000 threats against members of Congress just this calendar year. This is not new, but it continues to be able to rise. As we've seen, Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, in their own home, have a home invasion, to be murdered in their home, as we've seen a governor in Pennsylvania have his home set on fire. It's not just public events, it's also in our private spaces as well, that we're keenly aware that there are people that are irrational, that do irrational acts."
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
"I agree that for all of us who serve in public life, whether it's leading a nonprofit or a church, teaching in a school, or being a public advocate, someone engaged in public debate as Charlie Kirk was, the risk is getting higher. And to have to worry about the safety of your own family, if you step forward to serve as a judge, if you write editorials, if you lead a nonprofit, or if you serve in Congress or run for president, to have to worry not just about your own physical safety, but the safety of your spouse and children, I think, weakens our ability to have good and robust debates, to have a well-led nation, and to demonstrate to the world that we're a nation committed to free speech, but where we reject political violence. So of course, anyone in public life today is more concerned about the tragedy in Utah, about the incidents that Senator Lankford just referenced, the attempt to kidnap the governor of Michigan, to assault Speaker Pelosi’s husband, the shooting of Steve Scalise and the shootings at other members of Congress. The recent incidents have gotten worse and worse and I think I know the reason. It's principally because the internet is fueling and accelerating those deep-seated inclinations towards violence and seeing others as enemies that James was referencing. And there are steps we can and should take in Congress to address that."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)
During the interview, Garrett and the senators talked about cancel culture and the political climate after Kirk's death, with Garrett asking Lankford if he was comfortable having someone, at any governmental level or in the private sector, fired "for an utterance" about Kirk's death, and Lankford said:
"Yeah, this is about protecting the individual businesses. And what people are seeing is this cancel culture that still persists, that if you voice something that becomes a big push back from the community, the employer will step up and say, hey, you're about to kill our business based on what you're saying online. Everyone has to understand what they say privately online can get connected to their business. We have a veterinarian clinic in Oklahoma City right now that one of the veterinarians posted something just absolutely horrific about--and now we’re calling out the sick ones right after Charlie Kirk was murdered that now there's been big pushback through that veterinary clinic, because people are saying, okay, this is the person- do I want to do business with that person if they have that belief? So this is part of the challenge that we have with social media and with employments. Employers are going to say, don't hurt our business based on the foolish things that you choose to say, to be able to say online."
Garrett asked the same question to Coons, but within the federal government, and Coons said:
"The way James put it there, I think, is a good balance between it's okay to have codes of conduct to say to an employee, you shouldn't be speaking out on behalf of this company or this department of the federal government, where your role, for example, requires that you be trusted and that you not take partisan political positions. One of the challenges of the intersection of the line between social media and one's conduct on behalf of the government is that today we can see into your internal views. But it's not that new. So, let's imagine that you're a career federal prosecutor or you're a judge. Historically, there have been clear rules against engaging in partisan politics while you're performing those functions. The internet just makes it easier for folks to police and punish those who make statements that are considered extreme or out of the mainstream. Cancel culture is a real challenge to us, to balancing free speech with positions of responsibility, and we have to find our way through this together in a way that offers some grace and humility while celebrating the free speech that is the foundation of our republic, and urging people to think twice before they post things that are outrageous online."
To watch more of Garrett's interview with the senators, click here.
