Not the Kirkianism conservatism needs, but the one it deserves

Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point USA and is widely known for his commitment to “owning the libs,” one cheap bumper sticker slogan at a time. Kirk launched Turning Point USA in 2012 and built it into a formidable national, grassroots organization with a focus on college campuses. His network reached college students at dozens of universities across the country, competing with longtime campus right-of-center institutions such as College Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom, and Young Americans for Liberty. But of late, Kirk is more enthralled with his personal image and using Twitter to streamline his sycophancy.

Recently, American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp took to Twitter to announce Kirk’s now annual inclusion among the speakers list. But his inclusion, paired with the exclusion of a few big-name conservatives, illustrates greatly where conservatism finds itself today.

Kirk is emblematic of the drift the conservative movement has taken over the last few years toward attention-seeking at all costs and a focus on partisan point-scoring over profession of conservatism’s underlying and central ideals.

Kirk’s own book, wonderfully reviewed by Grant Addison, is a trite manifesto aimed at highlighting the author’s persona and “owning the libs” rather than focusing on persuading anyone. This is exhibited by the page breaks picturing select tweets from Kirk’s personal account. His brand is one of confrontation, degradation, and immediate gratification. Kirk chooses a win-at-all-costs mentality over one that remains consistent in principle.

Kirk’s style is a stark contrast to the father of American conservatism (with whom Kirk coincidentally shares a surname) a perfect illustration of conservatism’s trend toward point-scoring over persuasion. Where Russell Kirk believed in constraining presidential power, Charlie Kirk emphasizes it — provided of course, it’s a president he likes.

Wherein Russell Kirk emphasized the Burkean precept of judgment over popularity, Charlie Kirk focuses on populist demagoguery. Where the former defended the importance of institutions, the latter spits on them. And under the same label in which Russell Kirk preached persuasion, Charlie Kirk employs rudimentary colloquialism.

Yet Charlie Kirk, and those like him, remain staples of CPAC, while those of a more (Russell) Kirkian mindset are passed over.

Conservatism’s shift toward personal branding over adherence to its ideas has made the movement into one of men over principle. As such, where the movement’s keynote symposium lacks genuine ideology, it makes up for in identity politics.

Last year, Mona Charen, a longtime and sound conservative voice, expressed her displeasure at the large segment of the conservative movement that so easily excused the allegations against the former Repulican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy Moore. The case against Moore was far more credible than that against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. Not only that, but Moore’s career was mired in controversy well before the allegations surfaced. Yet some conservatives rushed to Moore’s defense without a second thought as to whether he was worthy of it. Charen criticized this, and in return was booed off the stage.

Charlie Kirk, to his credit, denounced Roy Moore. But the Turning Point USA head has contributed to his fair share of errant conspiracism with publicity stunts such as offering a $50,000 reward for the identity of the infamous “anonymous” New York Times op-ed writer, propagating the Seth Rich murder plot, and defending Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was known for misconduct like racial-profiling, targeting his political opponents, arresting local journalists who looked into his misdeeds, and staging a fake assassination attempt on himself. Charlie Kirk dubbed this man a “patriot.”

In spite of all this, Charlie Kirk remains one of the big names in right-wing politics. With a following of almost 900,000 on Twitter, Charlie Kirk is able to streamline his brand of right-wing populism to thousands of individuals.

He certainly has a lot of pull, but CPAC isn’t supposed to be solely about clout.

I saw first-hand the conference evolve from one which features the likes of Tim Scott, Mike Lee, George Will, Ben Sasse, and Mia Love into one frequented by the likes of unserious people such as Sebastian Gorka, Nigel Farage, Candace Owens, and, yes, Charlie Kirk. For a movement’s keynote event to no longer welcome Jonah Goldberg like it does Sean Hannity speaks volumes — and Charlie Kirk exemplifies this trend.

This year, the ACU has already amassed a speakers list that includes some important conservative figures like Kay Coles James, Katie Pavlich, Andrew McCarthy, and the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York. But Charlie Kirk and his ilk remain a constant and are garnering an ever-growing portion of the spotlight.

Conservatism today opts more for the Charlie Kirks than the Russell Kirks. This shift reflects more about CPAC and the shaky ground of the conservative movement it represents than it does of Charlie Kirk himself.

Brad Johnson (@bradjCincy) is an author in Cincinnati.