When Words Fail: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Need for Deliberative Democracy
Anya Dalal
The horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University is a devastating reminder that political violence has no place in America’s democracy. At just 31 years old, Kirk was a nationally known conservative activist whose career drew both support and controversy. His life ended not in debate, but in tragedy.
For California’s young people, this moment demands reflection and resolve. How do we create spaces where disagreement doesn’t turn into dehumanization? How can political voices (even those we strongly oppose) be heard without risk to life? And what kinds of civic education and democratic norms are needed to ensure violence is not only unacceptable, but unthinkable?
California has long been a leader in civic innovation. From citizen assemblies tackling pressing policy issues to local youth commissions and the California Association of Youth Commissions (CAYC), our state demonstrates what inclusive democracy can look like. That tradition comes with responsibility. If political violence is spreading, California’s young people must model another way forward.
One solution lies in deliberative democracy. Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University, who spoke at our inaugural in-person CAYC spring conference earlier this year, has pioneered Deliberative Polling®, a process tested in California and around the world. In “America in One Room,” he brought together a representative sample of over 500 registered voters from across the U.S. for a long weekend. With time, they reviewed balanced briefing materials, discussed the economy, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, and the environment, engaged in moderated small-group discussions, and asked questions of balanced panels of policy experts. His research shows that when people receive balanced information, have time to reflect, and engage with those holding different views, they often move toward more informed, respectful, and nuanced positions. While deliberation doesn’t eliminate disagreement, it transforms it into dialogue.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reinforces this perspective with its 2023 review of research on polarization and political violence. The findings show that Americans are not as far apart on policy as we think, but “affective polarization” — the deep emotional dislike of the other side — is rising fast. High polarization creates fertile ground for threats, intimidation, and extremism. While small interventions, like one-off civility pledges, can help in the short term, durable change requires systemic structural reforms in political institutions, media incentives and elite rhetoric as well as sustained dialogue.
The lessons are clear. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is essential; without it, we sink deeper into echo chambers. Fair conditions and norms (accuracy, fairness, and non-hostile moderation) make productive dialogue possible. And youth participation is vital; young Californians are both vulnerable to polarization and uniquely open to change when empowered to deliberate.
At CAYC, we urge our peers across California and our nation to take action. We must condemn violence in all its forms, regardless of ideology. We must expand opportunities for structured dialogue in schools, colleges, and communities. We must strengthen civic education so that students practice democracy, not just study it. Finally, we must foster empathy, remembering that opponents are not enemies but fellow citizens.
We mourn Charlie Kirk not as a partisan figure, but as a human being, a father, and a citizen whose life was cut short by violence. This tragedy is more than a moment of grief. Let it be a call for California’s youth to lead with empathy, to reject violence, and to demonstrate that democracy is strongest when it is deliberative, not destructive.
Image credit: Journal of Deliberative Democracy