Charlie Kirk: 21st Century Political Boss
Political Power in the Age of the Participatory Presidency
Vigils and moments of silence in the U.S. and around the world, not for a K-Pop icon, admired athlete, or revered religious leader, but for an American political social media figure.
Charlie Kirk was something new and different. He was perhaps the first of the new species, but he wasn’t the last.
Yesterday I watched Vice President J.D. Vance host Kirk’s podcast and remember his friend. I reported on the program and used it as a window into the MAGA worldview. Today, building on my previous writing about how social media is transforming politics and the presidency, I’ll look at Kirk’s role in these new political arrangements.
Charlie Kirk: The Man and the Message
There is a profusion of bodies in the firmament of right-wing influencers/anger-mongers/blowhards. Kirk was among the greatest gas giants. But he was distinct from the others. While he delivered unique cuts of red meat to the faithful, Kirk actually built a nation-wide organization that brought in new followers and—most importantly—voters. He began this project in his teens and was charming donors and building his organization when he was only 18 years old.
Tanner Greer, a thoughtful conservative (and brilliant analyst of China) who was preparing to go on Kirk’s show, gives a good explanation as to what made Kirk a big deal. I’ll quote him, at length, but read the entire thing:
To understand these emotions, you must first understand what the young Republican on campus was feeling at the height of the Great Awokening.
The young Republican felt afraid.
The young man who believed that a transgender woman is not a woman, or that white privilege is not a national crisis, or that Donald Trump should be president, was a young man who lived in fear. He feared what would happen if he expressed his beliefs. He feared humiliation. He feared that his classmates would blackball, bully, or haze him. He feared becoming the subject of a viral wave of hate. He feared having advisors and professors turn on him, damaging his grades or sabotaging his future career….
These young conservatives feared because they took the rhetoric of their professors and classmates seriously. They expected to be treated with the same grace, respect, and friendship that the median progressive reserved for the Ku Klux Klan. Time and again they were told that their beliefs were the functional equivalent of a Klansman’s. In this environment, only the most disagreeable or the most courageous were willing to stand up for their beliefs.
It was in this air of fear that Turning Point USA began to rise. For years progressives have looked at Charlie Kirk’s campus events and lampooned him for spending so much time debating 18-year-olds. They missed the point of these events. By walking onto hostile campuses and planting TPUSA chapters, Kirk showed young conservatives that they were not alone. By arguing with anyone willing to stand in line—professor or protester, heckler or hanger-on—Kirk was demonstrating that conservative beliefs could withstand the scrutiny and social pressure of the college environment.… Every time Kirk or his proxies praised Trump or made some inflammatory declaration, they were showing young conservatives that they could not be silenced.
Behind all of this was one overarching message: Do not fear. You have truth behind you.
Others have disputed this depiction of Kirk and his message. Most of the major takes on Kirk have elided his often inflammatory rhetoric and sometimes reprehensible views. People are being fired for merely reposting Kirk’s words.
The always excellent and insightful Don Moynihan notes that for all of the claims of liberal and academic intolerance of conservative views, Kirk was able to speak and organize at universities all over the country because of higher education’s commitment to tolerance. Nils Gilman writes that Kirk was not really interested in good faith engagement, but rather a simulacrum of dialogue that generated good clips for his media machine (which the algorithm has made ubiquitous for certain demographics on the social media).1
I’m inclined to agree with Gilman’s take in terms of the quality and depth of Kirk’s discourse. But it worked, Charlie Kirk was charming, even with those who disagreed with him, and online he was human clickbait. For so many conservatives, Kirk, and for that matter Trump, were merely giving back to liberals/progressives what they had been dishing out to conservatives. I cannot say this loudly enough, the people in MAGA world feel themselves to be victims. Others may quibble, but you cannot argue with feelings. A related eternal truth is that each thing contains its opposite. The bluster and braggadocio of MAGA masks deep fears of a world changing too fast and in ways that target them and their own deeply held values. (See Greer above, but also Walter Russell Mead, or my own takes here and here.)
This isn’t an endorsement, it is an explanation.
Kirk and Vance: A Beautiful Bromance
As I wrote above, Charlie Kirk wasn’t just media figure. He was an operator par excellence. He had a strong inside game, dealing with power brokers and becoming one. He inspired legions of young conservatives to enter politics. He had a great eye for political talent.
That eye fell on one J.D. Vance.
Vance was a rising star in his own right, but Kirk helped bring Vance into Trump world. Having built a close relationship with Don Jr., Kirk was able to bring him together with Vance. This led to the introductions that brought Vance, Trump’s endorsement for the Ohio Senate race and eventually to the vice presidency.
Kirk had a knack for friendship and his bond with Vance extended beyond the political. It is easy to imagine Vance speaking at Kirk’s funeral. But the vice president’s choice to host Kirk’s podcast says something very interesting about how politics and the presidency is changing.
Political Boss for 21st Century
I’ve written before on cycles in American politics. I’ll quote myself liberally here, rather than rewrite it.
[Samuel] Huntington (better known for the controversial Clash of Civilizations) argues [in American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony] that the United States goes through occasional (every 50-70 years) bouts of Creedal Passion. The ideals of the United States, beautifully expressed in the Declaration of Independence, are inspirational, but we don’t live up to them. Mostly we just ignore this gap or convince ourselves that the glaring contradictions between our ideals and our reality don’t exist. But in a bout of Creedal Passion, we cannot ignore our shortcomings and try to remake ourselves in line with our ideals. The last such era was the Sixties, which saw the end of legal segregation, efforts at reform in all corners of society, advancement of women and minority rights, and of course a huge push back against the growth of presidential power. Other eras include the Progressive Era of the early 20th century, the Jacksonian era, and the American Revolution itself. Two and a half centuries later, it is difficult to remember just how radical the American Revolution was.
First and foremost, these eras are characterized by widespread frenzy, the rapid emergence of movements and causes to address injustices, declines in public trust, and the spread of fads, quackery, and conspiracies. For the purpose of this analysis, the most consistent thread is that eras of Creedal Passion see communications revolutions that enable the rapid spread of ideas, rumors, and passion. Writing in the 1980s, Huntington predicted the second and third decades of the 21st century would be another era of Creedal Passion. All the signs are present….
The basis of presidential power, that is the political power that underpins the authority, that gives the president the warrant to proceed, changes. It changes during eras of Creedal Passion and one of the factors in these changes are the communications revolutions that accompany ages of Creedal Passion.
In the early days of the Republic presidential power was rooted in managing relations between the political elites. That model was overturned by Andrew Jackson (and Martin Van Buren, his second VP) who established the patronage-based party system. In an age of Creedal Passion, the power of these political elites came under fire. At the same time the industrial revolution enabled truly mass printing and rapid communications throughout the United States (first by steamboat, then train, and ultimately the telegraph). This technological revolution allowed Jackson and Van Buren to establish and direct a network of local parties and affiliated newspapers….
In the 1960s2 [the previous mode of presidential power] was overturned by the plebiscitary presidency, in which television and the ease of travel allowed the president to reach out beyond Washington and gather public support for their policies. Television was also central in highlighting the injustices of segregation and the Vietnam war.
The power of the plebiscitary presidency is fading….
Two key and linked features of social media enable the construction of the participatory presidency. It is, unlike the other communications mechanisms, not one-to-many, but many-to-many. Dr. Foust has observed that social media is a game. You can win through likes, views, and reposts. The winning gives the dopamine hits of scoring points, but it can also translate into social capital. For a regular Trump supporter, attention of a third-tier influencer can result in a big change in standing within the social media ecosystem. The ability of an active president (or at least one with a good team) to “touch” followers directly and interact with them scales enormously. Far beyond what can be achieved in a rally (not that those aren’t part of the ecosystem as well.) Being able to be involved with the campaign online further engages supporters and expands their feeling a part of something bigger than themselves.
In the earliest era of American politics presidents managed relations with the notables. Later, the key figures were party bosses. As the power of the parties faded, presidents worked with the heads of critical national interest groups. Under the plebiscitary presidency major media figures—the top columnists, pundits, and television and radio personalities. Today it is social media power brokers—the online political bosses.3
Old line political bosses delivered votes to the party. They delivered patronage, jobs and services, to ensure this loyalty. Political bosses also had tools to punish those who withheld support. Traditional party machines, outside of a few places, are far less of a factor in national politics.
A profile almost a year ago noted that Kirk was more than an influencer, he was an operator. Yes, Kirk was a formidable communicator with a massive online presence and a systematic strategy to build it with exciting in-person appearances. But more importantly, all of this was combined with systematic organizing. Kirk didn’t just expound and convert people to his ideology—with Turning Point and his other initiatives he built the institutional frameworks to maintain and expand these efforts. Kirk had the capacity to convert these efforts into real world political effects, bringing in new voters, influencing audiences, raising money, placing acolytes in political positions or advancing their electoral prospects, and coordinating direct action by his followers.
Boss Tweed would be in awe—but Tammany was just in it for the money. Kirk was a true believer.
Charlie Kirk may have been the first of this new species, he will not be the last. In fact his successor may be before us in the person of VP Vance, who to further his own ambitions has every incentive to lead and build on Kirk’s foundations, and semi-institutionalize the participatory presidency.
Watching debate clips, I am reminded of the adage: Don’t wrestle with a pig. You’ll get dirty and the pig will like it.
I cut a bunch here. But the partisan presidency established by under Jackson and Van Buren was displaced by the pluralist presidency in which the president worked with the insiders who led special interests.
To be clear, the previous eras power brokers don’t disappear. Presidents still need the party leaders, although their power is a mere shadow of its earlier strength. Presidents must also fête the leaders of major interests and traditional media figures. But their power is fading, social media figures are on the rise.