On the Dilemma of House Bill 719

Politicians are, in general, an unsavory lot.  They’re more about winning than about doing the right thing, and winning is often defined not by accomplishing something good, but by embarrassing the opposition.  This applies to those on both sides of the aisle, of course, but, at least recently, the GOP has dominated the field.

Charlie Kirk was, of course, a master of the form: “debating” (i.e., arguing with) college kids, interrupting them, and releasing deceptively edited videos designed to make himself look smart but especially to make the other side look stupid.  Most of his stuff was straight out of the James O’Keefe playbook.  However much his acolytes (and MAGAs who’d never heard of him until he was shot) might choose to lionize him as a champion of respectful disagreement, free speech, and Christian virtues, he was none of those things. 

True, he was longer on smarminess than on Trumpian reckless vituperation (Gentle Reader, can you believe what 47 said about hating those who disagree with him politically?), but that doesn’t change the fact that if you weren’t a white cishet Christian (preferably evangelical) male, he had no respect for you.  He pretended to care about Constitutional values, but, for example, openly despised Muslims (so much for freedom of religion).

Now, in addition to the rest of the multiple hagiographic indulgences, we get House Bill 719, introduced by the creepiest and most sycophantic of GOP Congresscritters, Mike Johnson himself.  It is, of course, a trap.  The string of “whereases” includes a series of descriptions that near little resemblance to reality: “respectful, civil discourse,” “respect for his fellow Americans,” “commitment to civil discussion and debate,” “worked tirelessly to promote unity,” and so on. 

Of course, equally if not more importantly, there were no such encomia to, say, Melissa Hortman, and certainly no recognition that literally every study of political violence, including the report of the Cato Institute (!) shows the preponderance of such attacks come from the right.

Still, the average person could stomach most if not all of this out of respect for the dead.  The real problem is the resolution:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.

Yeah, no.  Curmie doesn’t want to know anyone who doesn’t support the odd-numbered parts, at least assuming a secularized definition of “prays” in #3.  #2 is a little more problematic, as Kash Patel’s FBI bungled the case enormously, detained two innocent people, and only got around to Tyler Robinson when his family turned him in.  If they hadn’t narked on him (Curmie does not mean to suggest that they were wrong in doing so), the killer might well still be at large.  Still, this is the kind of generic praise that often accompanies this kind of resolution.  Curmie would still vote for the bill except for #4.

Ah, #4.  Curmie, and he suspects that he is not alone in this, does not “[honor] the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk,” who was, in Curmie’s opinion, one of the most reprehensible human beings on the planet.  He did not have a “steadfast dedication” to any of the three items listed: “the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth.”  This statement goes beyond the pro forma fluffing of the deceased and enters into the realm of outright prevarication.

Moreover, the unmodified phrase “Biblical truth” should never appear in a resolution in the House of Representatives.  Never.  Ever.  Use it on the floor if you must, but not in a bill.  Of course, if “Biblical truth” is defined to be the actual teachings of the Bible—you know, Gentle Reader, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, stuff like that—then it would indeed be welcome.  Fat chance of any of that happening in Trumpistan, of course.

But the bill forces those who have not quaffed the neo-Fascist Kool-Aid either to vote for a resolution that specifically and mendaciously idolizes a despicable person, or to be seen voting against a measure condemning political violence.  Even a number of otherwise intelligent conservatives are pretending that this dilemma doesn’t really exist, and are therefore hurling metaphorical brickbats at anyone who didn’t vote for the resolution.

That’s because they cannot (or choose not to) believe that it is possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously.  But one really can believe that illegal immigration is a legitimate issue (it would be less of one if Trump hadn’t scuttled a bi-partisan bill that would have at least somewhat stemmed the tide because he’d rather have a campaign issue than attempt to solve a problem) and still oppose ambushing people at apparently routine meetings to renew work permits or even to finalize the paperwork for citizenship.  Due process still matters, and ICE’s deliberate avoidance of confronting the real “worst of the worst” is craven, dishonest, and, alas, predictable.

It is possible to despise Hamas and everything they stand for and still think that innocent Palestinians shouldn’t be intentionally starved to death by an authoritarian bigot like Bibi Netanyahu.

It is possible to regard Charlie Kirk as a horrible person and still condemn his murder and his murderer.

How does Curmie know these things?  Because he’s describing himself.

Of course, Curmie also saw a meme shortly after Kirk’s assassination urging Democrats in Congress to introduce the “Charlie Kirk Gun Control Bill,” just so the Republicans would have to vote against it.  The difference is that the suggestion was intended to be ironic if not humorous, and no Democratic pol did anything more than indulge in a sardonic smile.