Charlie Kirk, head of Turning Point USA and a prominent conservative influencer, lost his life at the hands of an assassin. He was doing what he excelled at, trying to persuade college students to join his movement, which advanced traditional values. With his tent displaying his challenge, “Prove Me Wrong,” Kirk invited others to debate him. For his trouble, he lost his life in an unspeakable act of violence.

Kirk was at the height of his persuasive powers and was highly effective. He worked in a difficult venue, college campuses, which were never known as inviting to right-leaning speakers. But he managed to change minds, winning the admiration of students, which is never an easy task. He was open, good-humored, and generous with his time. His gift was that he both proselytized and listened, and during the 2024 presidential campaign, he managed to increase the youth vote (18-29) for President Donald Trump.

Kirk’s program, available on Real American Voices, ran daily and gave a good account of what he believed. I was a regular viewer and frequently enjoyed his good humor, if not always his opinions. Some of his ideas, however, had a great deal of merit and reflected how America landed in our current situation. More importantly, he spoke specifically to young men and used his own life as an example to inspire them, offering words of encouragement and, more importantly, hope.

Certainly, Kirk knew his audience, but he also showed understanding. For those men who lamented that they lacked a college degree, Kirk explained that he was a dropout. Never fear, he stated, there were alternative routes to success and happiness. Principally, marriage and faith were his remedies, and he loved to celebrate his wife and their children.

Now Kirk did add a fair amount of conservative messages; some were harsh, but mostly he concentrated on preserving the American family as it has existed for centuries. He hit a nerve and appealed to voters who did not roll their eyes at a message that would have been commonplace less than a generation ago. By older American standards, he was no radical, but a champion of domestic bliss as he interpreted it. For a generation faced with living less well than their parents or caught up in a society of nihilistic consumerism, all of this sounded alluring.

Kirk fought with open vision, and for that, he deserves praise. He was no “fascist” and if anything, he liked debate more, not less. In an era that adores unthinking labels, one must characterize people’s opinions carefully. Call opinions dated or challenge the other side’s interpretations of the past, but be careful to know exactly what you speak. This goes for people who carelessly call others “Communist” when in fact they hold merely another view.

If too many people are incorrectly labeled, those who are truly authoritarian are the only beneficiaries.

The great fear should be that when all of this is past, the winner is not those of a darker, more sinister bent. The admonition applies to all people of goodwill.

Perhaps we should stick to Charlie’s challenge, “Prove Me Wrong,” using debate rather than venomous comments.