A Tragic Moment in American Democracy: Condemning Violence, Confronting Ideas

By: Rev. Arnedo S. Valera, Esquire

The death of Charlie Kirk, regardless of one’s agreement or disagreement with his politics, is a tragedy that must be condemned in the strongest terms. Political violence has no place in a democracy that prides itself on freedom, dialogue, and the peaceful exchange of ideas. The moment we tolerate bloodshed as a method of settling disputes, we abandon the very foundations of the American experiment.

As an immigrant who came to America because my very life was threatened with extinction for my engagement in human rights lawyering in the Philippines—defending farmers, subsistence fisherfolk, the urban and rural poor, and Indigenous communities—I grieve deeply at this turn of events. America was built on the principle that disagreement—even fierce, passionate disagreement—should be resolved through words, ballots, and institutions, not bullets. Violence is not democracy; it is its undoing.

The Principle of Nonviolence

History’s greatest champions of justice—Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela—remind us that nonviolence is not weakness but strength. It is the assertion that truth, dignity, and justice cannot be won through fear or destruction. The violent act that took Kirk’s life violates these principles and betrays our collective responsibility to safeguard the civic space where ideas, however polarizing, must be debated, not destroyed.

We must be gravely concerned, for if violence becomes normalized, it will not stop with one man or one movement. It will consume all sides of the political spectrum, eroding trust and silencing voices until only fear remains.

The Legacy of Charlie Kirk’s Views

Condemning this violence does not mean endorsing Charlie Kirk’s worldview. His political positions—on immigration, race, religion, gender, and democracy itself—were often deeply controversial, polarizing, and, for many, harmful. He amplified conspiratorial thinking, dismissed systemic racism, and portrayed immigrants like myself as a cultural threat rather than as contributors to America’s fabric.

From a political perspective, Kirk exemplified a strain of right-wing populism that thrives on grievance, sharp divisions, and a nostalgia for a past that excluded too many. His influence, through Turning Point USA, mobilized young people not toward dialogue across difference, but toward ideological conformity and mistrust of institutions that protect pluralism.

From a biological and human perspective, such rhetoric fuels the psychology of fear and tribalism. Neuroscientists and social psychologists note that when leaders constantly frame politics as “us versus them,” the brain’s threat responses become heightened, impairing empathy and reinforcing division. A society organized around fear of the “other” becomes biologically wired for suspicion, not solidarity.

From a scholarly lens, Kirk’s ideas often neglected the historical complexity of American democracy. His dismissal of structural inequities contradicted decades of social science showing how poverty, discrimination, and exclusion shape life chances. His claim to defend “freedom” often translated into defending the privileges of some at the expense of others.

The Duty of a Democracy

Yet the answer to his worldview was never, and should never be, violence. The answer must be better ideas, more inclusive narratives, and more courageous leadership. The proper arena for defeating divisive rhetoric is the public square, the classroom, the voting booth—not the morgue.

As immigrants, we bring with us not only our labor but our stories, our resilience, and our commitment to America’s ideals. President Ronald Reagan once said: “If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.” This nation’s greatness has always depended on the energy, faith, and sacrifice of those who left everything behind to build a freer, stronger America.

A Call to Action

We must condemn political violence without equivocation. We must hold fast to nonviolence as the bedrock of civic life. And we must confront the ideas of Charlie Kirk and others like him through reasoned, relentless critique—not bullets.

Let his death remind us of the urgency to build a democracy resilient enough to withstand anger, disagreement, and fear—without succumbing to violence. Let it also remind us that America’s greatness lies not in silencing opponents but in proving them wrong through justice, truth, and compassion.

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is  a Co- Executive Director / Founder of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and Managing Attorney of Valera & Associates, a U.S. immigration and anti-discrimination law firm he has led for more than 32 years. He is a New York lawyer and Philippine Attorney since 1985.He is a Ford Foundation and Asia Foundation Scholar, holding a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University, New York, with further training at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University and his AB in Philosophy from the University of Santo Tomas. A committed educator, he serves as a professor at the San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances. He is also a columnist writer for Inquirer.net and a pro-bono attorney for several nonprofit organizations in the United States.