Charlie Kirk: The Lenin Shadow

Abstract

Introduction

In democratic theory, pluralism is not a luxury but the very condition of freedom. Robert Dahl (1989) describes democracy as “polyarchy”—a system where multiple centers of power and competing voices check and balance one another. Without this multiplicity, democratic institutions devolve into façade, retaining procedures while losing substance. Recent developments in U.S. politics demonstrate how fragile this pluralist foundation has become. Political entrepreneurs have learned to cloak authoritarian impulses in the language of free speech, religious liberty, and patriotic loyalty, while in practice demanding ideological conformity and punishing dissent.

One of the most visible figures in this transformation is Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organization that has grown into a major force in Republican politics. Through campus tours, media appearances, and his podcast, Kirk has cultivated an image as a defender of American conservatism, Christian values, and free expression. Yet, as this paper argues, his rhetorical strategies and political methods reveal something far more troubling: the persistence of what can be called the Lenin shadow—a form of political monologism that transcends ideology and reappears whenever leaders claim a monopoly on truth.


Defining the Lenin Shadow

The “Lenin shadow” does not mean Kirk is a communist or sympathetic to Marxism. On the contrary, he situates himself as a fierce opponent of socialism and left-wing politics. Rather, the Lenin shadow refers to a structural resemblance: the use of monologism as a political method. Lenin pioneered a model of politics in which one party, one interpretation, and one voice were elevated above all others. In Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? (1902), the vanguard party is depicted as the sole legitimate interpreter of Marxist truth, delegitimizing rival voices as heresy or treason (Lih, 2006). This monopoly of truth justified censorship, repression, and ultimately terror.

While Kirk operates in a democratic context, his strategies reveal striking echoes of this method. His discourse often collapses complex issues into binaries of absolute good versus absolute evil; he positions his worldview as synonymous with Christianity and patriotism; and he treats dissent not as legitimate disagreement but as betrayal. The form is Leninist, even if the content is nationalist, religious, or conservative.


Monologism and the Death of Pluralism

Bakhtin (1981) contrasts dialogism, where multiple voices coexist and interact, with monologism, where one voice claims absolute authority. Democracy thrives on dialogism; authoritarianism thrives on monologism. The Lenin shadow appears whenever political discourse shifts from contestation to domination, from dialogue to coercion.

In contemporary America, this shadow manifests not only in Kirk but in the broader MAGA movement. The slogan “Make America Great Again” once suggested a nostalgic vision of economic strength or cultural cohesion. Yet in practice, it increasingly functions as “Make America Only One Voice.” The pluralist essence of democracy is hollowed out, leaving behind a façade where free speech exists in name but is coerced in practice.


The Role of Religion and Ideology

Kirk’s rhetoric is particularly effective because it fuses religion with ideology. He appeals to Christianity not as a living, diverse tradition but as a fixed, absolute authority that validates his worldview. This is what this paper calls religion without religion—a political appropriation of faith that reduces theology to propaganda. In this way, Kirk’s discourse mirrors Lenin’s instrumentalization of Marxism: both transform complex traditions into rigid dogmas that justify power.

The result is not conservatism in the traditional sense. Classical conservatism, as articulated by thinkers like Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott, valued prudence, humility, and respect for institutions. Kirk’s version is closer to conservatism without conservatism: a radical populist project that weaponizes tradition while discarding its spirit.


Cold Political Violence

One of the most insidious aspects of this method is its reliance on what Johan Galtung (1990) calls structural and cultural violence—forms of harm that are indirect, normalized, and invisible. In this context, Kirk’s speeches function as cold political violence: coercion masked as civility. While presented as debates, his performances often humiliate opponents, distort facts, and stigmatize dissent. The result is not persuasion but domination, discouraging others from speaking freely.

This cold violence also extends into social consequences. Individuals who publicly dissent from the MAGA line often face ostracism, harassment, or professional repercussions. Thus, the marketplace of ideas becomes distorted: speech is formally free but substantively constrained.


Fear and Hatred as Mobilizing Tools

Like Lenin, Kirk understands the political utility of fear and hatred. His rhetoric routinely constructs enemies—liberals, immigrants, “globalists,” the media—whose existence supposedly threatens the survival of America. By manufacturing existential threats, he mobilizes followers around a sense of siege. Fear simplifies; hatred solidifies. The complexity of pluralism is replaced with the clarity of conflict.

One particularly telling case is Kirk’s discourse on Ukraine. By echoing narratives that delegitimize U.S. support for Ukraine, he indirectly aligns with Russian propaganda. Whether intentional or not, this reflects how one-voice politics easily becomes a conduit for authoritarian agendas abroad.


The Stakes for Democracy

The stakes of this analysis are high. If Kirk’s methods remain unchecked, they risk normalizing a culture where only one voice is legitimate. This corrodes not only civic discourse but institutional democracy itself. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) warn that democracies die when opponents are no longer recognized as legitimate rivals but are instead branded existential enemies. Kirk’s rhetoric accelerates this process.

The Lenin shadow reminds us that authoritarianism is not confined to left or right, socialism or nationalism. It is a method that recurs whenever leaders monopolize truth and silence dissent. Recognizing this pattern in Kirk’s discourse is essential to defending American pluralism.


Structure of the Paper

This paper proceeds in six parts. Following the introduction, Section 1 explores the Leninist shadow as a method shared across ideologies. Section 2 examines how Kirk transforms religion into ideology, creating “religion without religion.” Section 3 analyzes cold political violence disguised as debate. Section 4 identifies the authoritarian core of the “only one voice” principle. Section 5 investigates the manufacture of fear and hatred, with special attention to the Ukraine case. Section 6 concludes by proposing empathy and pluralism as democratic alternatives.

Through this analysis, the paper aims not merely to critique Kirk as an individual but to highlight the enduring danger of authoritarian methods in democratic societies.




Section 1: The Leninist Shadow — Different Narratives, Same Method


Authoritarian Monopolization of Truth

At the core of Lenin’s political method was the monopoly of truth. In his 1902 pamphlet What Is to Be Done?, Lenin argued that the working class, left to its own devices, could only achieve “trade-union consciousness.” To attain revolutionary consciousness, the proletariat needed a vanguard party that alone possessed the correct interpretation of Marxism (Lih, 2006). This position established a dangerous precedent: the idea that only one group, one interpretation, one “voice” had legitimacy. All dissenting perspectives, whether from rival Marxist factions, anarchists, or even reformist socialists, were branded as betrayal.

This monopolization of truth became the defining feature of Leninist politics. Once the revolution succeeded, pluralism was discarded. The press was censored, rival parties banned, and opposition leaders imprisoned or executed. Truth was no longer a contested space of debate but a fixed orthodoxy defined by the party.

Charlie Kirk, though inhabiting a vastly different context—21st-century American democracy—reveals striking parallels. He frequently presents his worldview not as one legitimate perspective among many, but as the singular embodiment of truth, patriotism, and faith. Political opponents are not merely mistaken; they are enemies of America, of Christianity, or of civilization itself. This rhetorical structure mirrors Lenin’s method: delegitimizing dissent by monopolizing truth.


Simplification, Reduction, and Binary Thinking

A hallmark of Leninist propaganda was the radical simplification of complex realities. Social phenomena were collapsed into binaries: proletariat versus bourgeoisie, revolutionaries versus counter-revolutionaries, progress versus reaction. This reduction was not incidental; it was essential for mobilization. Complex realities confuse; simple binaries mobilize.

Kirk’s rhetoric exhibits the same reductionist logic. Higher education is framed not as a diverse field of inquiry but as a “Marxist indoctrination camp.” Immigration policy becomes a binary between patriotic defense of borders and treasonous open borders. Social justice movements are reduced to “cultural Marxism,” portrayed as existential threats to Western civilization. By reducing multifaceted issues into binary struggles, Kirk replicates Lenin’s strategy of simplification.

Political communication theory supports this observation. Stanley (2018) notes that fascist and authoritarian rhetorics consistently rely on “us versus them” binaries, amplifying emotions of loyalty and fear while suppressing complexity. Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2017) describe populism as a “thin-centered ideology” that divides society into two camps: the pure people versus the corrupt elite. Kirk’s discourse reflects precisely this structure.


Delegitimization of Opponents

Lenin’s delegitimization of rivals—Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, and anarchists—was central to consolidating Bolshevik power. Opposition was not tolerated as part of democratic pluralism; it was stigmatized as treason. This strategy justifies repression: if opponents are illegitimate, silencing them is not undemocratic but necessary.

Kirk’s rhetoric similarly delegitimizes opponents. Democrats are often portrayed not as legitimate political rivals but as existential threats. Liberal professors are accused of brainwashing youth; progressive activists are described as enemies of the nation; critics of MAGA are branded traitors. This framing erodes democratic norms. As Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) emphasize, democracy begins to die when opponents are denied legitimacy.

In practice, Kirk’s discourse encourages audiences to view disagreement not as a civic necessity but as betrayal. The Leninist method reemerges: truth is monopolized, opponents are stigmatized, pluralism is delegitimized.



The Cultivation of Absolute Certainty

Another shared feature is the cultivation of absolute certainty. Lenin’s writings exude confidence: the Bolshevik line is correct, history is inevitable, opponents are doomed. This certainty inspired loyalty but also justified violence. If history guarantees Bolshevik victory, then dissent is not only wrong but criminal.

Kirk cultivates a similar aura of certainty. He presents conservative positions not as debatable but as self-evident truths. For example, he declares America to be a Christian nation by design, dismissing constitutional arguments about secularism as irrelevant. He proclaims that left-wing policies inevitably lead to socialism and collapse, ignoring counter-evidence. This rhetorical certainty shuts down debate. If truth is already known, why listen to dissenters?

This style resonates with young audiences seeking clarity in a confusing world. Yet it also reproduces the authoritarian logic of Lenin: certainty becomes a weapon against pluralism.


The Role of Emotional Mobilization

Lenin’s speeches and writings were not purely theoretical; they were designed to stir emotions—anger at the bourgeoisie, pride in the proletariat, fear of betrayal. Kirk’s style is similar. His speeches are charged with indignation, often portraying conservatives as victims of liberal oppression, Christians as victims of secular hostility, and patriots as victims of globalist elites.

Political psychology shows that emotional appeals, especially fear and anger, reduce critical thinking and increase conformity (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). By mobilizing emotions, Kirk creates a climate where followers rally to his voice, dismissing alternative perspectives. Again, the Lenin shadow is clear: emotions are weaponized to sustain monologism.


The Different Narratives, Same Method Thesis

It is crucial to underline that Kirk and Lenin occupy opposing ideological spectrums: one defended communism, the other defends conservative nationalism. Yet their methods converge. Both:
• Claim exclusive access to truth.
• Reduce complex issues into binary absolutes.
• Delegitimize opponents as traitors or enemies.
• Cultivate absolute certainty.
• Mobilize emotions of fear, anger, and loyalty.

This convergence supports what can be called the Different Narratives, Same Method Thesis. Ideologies may vary—communism, fascism, religious nationalism—but the authoritarian method persists. It is the method of monologism: one voice, one truth, one vision.


Implications for American Democracy

The replication of Leninist methods in American conservatism raises urgent concerns. If leaders like Kirk succeed in normalizing monologism, the pluralist foundation of democracy erodes. Debate becomes domination; free speech becomes cold violence; elections become loyalty tests.

The Lenin shadow reminds us that authoritarianism is not confined to leftist revolutions or right-wing dictatorships. It is a recurring danger whenever political movements abandon pluralism for absolute certainty. In Kirk’s discourse, we see the reemergence of this danger—not in the streets of Petrograd, but in American campuses, churches, and media.




Section 2: Religion Transformed — Weaponizing Faith, Reducing Theology

The Sacralization of Politics

One of the most persistent features of authoritarian movements is the sacralization of politics—the transformation of secular ideologies into quasi-religious dogmas (Gentile, 2005). By borrowing the language of faith, political leaders elevate their agendas beyond criticism. If a policy is framed as sacred, disagreement becomes not only wrong but blasphemous.

Lenin did this with Marxism, which he presented as “scientific truth.” Marxism ceased to be one interpretation of social theory and became the unchallengeable faith of the Bolshevik movement. Opponents were not merely mistaken; they were heretics against the historical mission of the proletariat.

Charlie Kirk, though in a different ideological camp, deploys the same method. He sacralizes conservatism and Christian nationalism, presenting them as divinely sanctioned truths rather than contested political positions. By doing so, he immunizes his rhetoric against critique: to challenge him is to challenge God, tradition, or the nation itself.



Religion Without Religion

Kirk’s invocation of Christianity is striking not for its theological depth but for its instrumental simplicity. He often asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation, that separation of church and state is a myth, and that true patriotism requires fidelity to biblical values (Kirk, 2022). Yet these claims flatten the complexity of Christian thought into slogans.

Christian theology is rich and diverse. From Augustine to Aquinas, Luther to Calvin, Catholic to Orthodox to Protestant traditions, Christianity encompasses profound debates about free will, grace, justice, and the relationship between church and state. American Christianity itself has multiple traditions: evangelical, mainline, Catholic, Black church traditions, liberation theology, and more. To claim that Christianity unambiguously supports one political movement is historically inaccurate and theologically shallow.

This is what can be called religion without religion: the hollowing out of theology until it becomes mere political branding. Faith is no longer a path of spiritual inquiry but a weapon in cultural warfare.

The pattern mirrors Lenin’s treatment of Marxism. For Marx, the critique of capitalism was a dynamic, evolving analysis. For Lenin, Marxism became a catechism: fixed, absolute, and closed to reinterpretation. Kirk performs a similar move with Christianity. The living tradition of faith is reduced to a static dogma that serves political ends.



Conservatism Without Conservatism

The same hollowing occurs with conservatism. Traditional conservative thought values prudence, institutional stability, and the humility of limited knowledge (Oakeshott, 1991). Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, defended tradition but also warned against the arrogance of abstract dogma. Conservatism, in its classic sense, resists ideological absolutism.

Kirk’s rhetoric discards this heritage. Instead of prudence, he offers certitude; instead of institutional respect, he offers culture-war absolutism. His version of conservatism is not a cautious defense of order but an aggressive demand for ideological conformity. Thus, just as Christianity becomes religion without religion, conservatism becomes conservatism without conservatism.

This distortion matters because it erases the intellectual richness of the traditions Kirk claims to defend. His audience, especially young conservatives, are taught to see faith and conservatism not as complex inheritances to be studied and debated, but as fixed dogmas to be weaponized.



The Insider–Outsider Divide

Another function of Kirk’s sacralized rhetoric is to draw rigid boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Those who accept his interpretation of Christianity and conservatism are included as true Americans. Those who dissent are cast as outsiders—irreligious, immoral, even un-American.

This is a classic authoritarian tactic. By framing identity in sacred terms, dissent becomes apostasy. When Lenin defined Bolshevism as the sole legitimate expression of Marxism, all rivals became traitors. When Kirk defines America as Christian and conservative, liberals, secularists, and dissenting Christians become enemies.

The result is not only polarization but the delegitimization of entire groups of citizens. Instead of a shared civic identity, society is split into sacred insiders and profane outsiders. This logic undermines the very idea of pluralistic democracy, where citizenship is equal regardless of belief.



Selective Theology and the Illusion of Authority

Kirk’s use of religion is also marked by selective theology. He emphasizes biblical passages or principles that align with conservative political stances (family values, opposition to secularism) while ignoring those that might challenge capitalist excess, militarism, or racial inequality. This selective use of scripture creates the illusion that faith itself mandates his politics, when in fact it is a political choice cloaked in theological language.

This strategy recalls Lenin’s selective use of Marx. Marx’s writings were complex and often contradictory. Lenin cherry-picked the parts that suited his revolutionary strategy, discarding nuance. In both cases, selective interpretation creates a false sense of divine or scientific authority.



Religion as a Tool of Political Cold Violence

The reduction of religion to political dogma also functions as a form of cold political violence. By branding dissenters as enemies of God, Kirk stigmatizes disagreement. Opponents are not just wrong; they are wicked, dangerous, or demonic. This delegitimization discourages genuine dialogue.

Consider Kirk’s frequent portrayal of secular liberals as enemies of faith, intent on destroying religious freedom. This narrative does not invite debate about constitutional interpretation; it frames opponents as existential threats. In this way, religion becomes not a source of compassion but a weapon of exclusion.



Historical Parallels

The weaponization of religion has long been a tool of authoritarian politics. In Franco’s Spain, Catholicism was used to justify authoritarian rule. In Iran, clerical authority undergirded political repression. In Russia, the Orthodox Church has often been co-opted to legitimate state power. In each case, religion was stripped of its spiritual depth and instrumentalized for politics.

Kirk’s discourse belongs to this lineage. By reducing Christianity to political dogma, he participates in the same authoritarian tradition. The specifics differ—American democracy is not Spain under Franco—but the method is strikingly similar.



Implications for Young Audiences

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Kirk’s religious rhetoric is its impact on young audiences. Turning Point USA presents itself as a movement for college students, introducing them to conservatism and faith. Yet instead of encouraging critical engagement with theology and political philosophy, Kirk offers simplified slogans and absolutist dogmas.

This pedagogy of certainty deprives young people of the intellectual tools needed for genuine faith or responsible citizenship. Instead of teaching them to wrestle with difficult questions, it teaches them to repeat slogans. Instead of dialogism, they learn monologism. In this sense, Kirk’s rhetoric is not only authoritarian in method but pedagogically destructive.



Conclusion

Kirk’s invocation of religion illustrates the Lenin shadow in striking ways. Like Lenin, he transforms a complex intellectual tradition into a rigid dogma. Like Lenin, he uses that dogma to delegitimize opponents and mobilize followers. The result is religion without religion and conservatism without conservatism—faith and tradition hollowed out, repurposed as weapons in cultural warfare.

By sacralizing politics, Kirk undermines both democracy and religion. Democracy requires pluralism; religion requires humility. When both are replaced by absolutism, society loses not only political freedom but spiritual depth. In this way, the Lenin shadow darkens both the civic and the sacred.




Section 3: Cold Violence Disguised as Debate


Defining Cold Political Violence

Political violence is conventionally understood in terms of physical harm: riots, coups, assassinations, repression. Yet Johan Galtung (1990) and later scholars of peace and conflict studies argue that violence also operates in subtler, less visible forms. Structural violence refers to harm embedded in institutions that deprive people of dignity, resources, or recognition. Cultural violence describes the legitimization of harm through norms, symbols, or discourse. Building on these concepts, this article uses the term cold political violence to describe coercion that operates under the guise of civility.

Cold political violence does not break bones or shed blood. Instead, it stigmatizes, silences, and coerces through words, rituals, and symbolic acts. It creates climates of fear where individuals internalize constraints on what they may say or believe. While hot violence is overt, cold violence is covert—masked as debate, education, or civic engagement.

Charlie Kirk’s rhetorical strategies exemplify this form. His events, podcasts, and social media output are framed as forums for debate, free speech, and civic participation. Yet the communicative structure often undermines genuine dialogue. Instead of deliberation, his discourse functions as domination.



Debate as Performance, Not Dialogue

At first glance, Kirk’s frequent campus debates appear to model democratic engagement. He invites questions, responds to challenges, and frames himself as defending conservative principles against liberal critics. However, closer analysis reveals these exchanges as performances of dominance rather than exchanges of reasoning.

Consider the typical structure of a Turning Point USA event: Kirk stands before a sympathetic audience, takes questions from a microphone, and engages in back-and-forth with students. In theory, this resembles the Socratic tradition of dialectical inquiry. In practice, however, it is carefully staged. Audiences overwhelmingly support Kirk, rewarding his quips with applause and jeering at opponents. Kirk himself employs rhetorical ambushes, sarcasm, and rapid-fire talking points designed less to persuade than to overwhelm.

The effect is to humiliate challengers and reinforce the loyalty of followers. Dialogue becomes spectacle; reasoned exchange becomes political theater. This aligns with Chantal Mouffe’s (2005) critique of “post-political” discourse: what appears as debate is in fact the reinforcement of friend–enemy distinctions.



Rhetorical Fog and Emotional Overdrive

A central tactic of cold political violence is the use of rhetorical fog—obscuring facts with emotional overdrive. Kirk frequently shifts discussions away from empirical questions toward moral absolutes. For instance, when asked about systemic racism, he may dismiss evidence by reframing the issue as an attack on American greatness or Christian identity. When challenged on climate change, he pivots to arguments about freedom and government overreach.

The tactic is effective because it mobilizes emotions of pride, anger, and fear, while bypassing the slower processes of critical reasoning. Political psychology demonstrates that under conditions of emotional arousal, individuals are more likely to conform to group identity and less likely to scrutinize claims (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). Thus, Kirk’s rhetoric operates not to enlighten but to inflame.

The Leninist shadow is evident here. Lenin’s speeches similarly relied on emotional polarization: rallying proletarians with outrage at bourgeois injustice, while dismissing empirical complexities as distractions. Truth was not an open field of inquiry but a weapon in struggle. Kirk mirrors this by privileging emotion over evidence, absolutes over nuance.



Delegitimization of Opponents

Cold political violence also works through the delegitimization of opponents. Kirk often portrays liberals, academics, or journalists not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally corrupt, dangerous, or evil. A liberal professor is not just wrong; he is indoctrinating youth. A progressive activist is not just misinformed; she is destroying America. A critical journalist is not just skeptical; he is an enemy of freedom.

This delegitimization discourages genuine engagement. If an opponent is evil, dialogue is pointless; only defeat matters. Lenin employed precisely this logic: Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries were not legitimate socialists but traitors. Once delegitimized, repression became justified.

In Kirk’s context, repression is not state violence but social ostracism, reputational harm, and professional exclusion. Yet the logic is identical: opponents are not partners in dialogue but enemies to be silenced.



Cancel Culture and the Mirror of Projection

Ironically, Kirk frequently accuses liberals of promoting “cancel culture”—punishing conservatives for their beliefs. Yet his own rhetoric reproduces the same dynamic. By portraying dissenting conservatives as “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only), he delegitimizes them within his movement. By framing critics as traitors, he encourages their exclusion from conservative platforms, donors, and networks.

This mirror effect illustrates the cold violence of monologism. What is condemned in opponents is reproduced within the movement. The Lenin shadow again appears: Lenin condemned the Tsarist regime’s repression while instituting his own. Kirk condemns cancel culture while practicing it internally.



Social Media Amplification

The coercive effects of Kirk’s rhetoric are amplified through social media. His clips circulate on Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok, reaching millions of viewers. These platforms favor brevity, outrage, and spectacle, rewarding the very features of cold violence: emotional appeals, humiliation of opponents, and reduction of complexity.

Scholars note that social media creates “affective publics” (Papacharissi, 2015), where emotions, not facts, drive engagement. Kirk exploits this dynamic. A clip of him ridiculing a liberal student may receive millions of views, while the student’s perspective disappears. The structure of the medium reinforces the monologism of the message.

This is not debate in any meaningful sense. It is a digital echo chamber where dissent is silenced, not through censorship, but through ridicule, distortion, and marginalization.



The Chilling Effect

The consequences of cold political violence are profound. Students or young conservatives who dissent risk being ostracized within their peer networks. Academics who challenge Kirk’s narratives face harassment campaigns. Journalists critical of Turning Point USA encounter online abuse.

This creates a chilling effect, where individuals self-censor to avoid becoming targets. In democratic theory, freedom of speech is meaningful only when individuals can speak without fear of retribution (Habermas, 1996). Cold violence undermines this condition. Speech remains formally legal but substantively constrained.



Historical Parallels

The use of cold violence under the guise of debate has historical precedents. In the Soviet Union, show trials presented the appearance of legal debate while functioning as performances of domination. In Nazi Germany, propaganda films depicted staged dialogues where opponents were humiliated. In Maoist China, “criticism sessions” forced individuals to publicly confess errors before jeering crowds.

Kirk’s campus debates are far less extreme, but the structure is similar: staged performances where dissenters are ridiculed before loyal audiences. The method—humiliation as domination—is the same.



Conclusion

Charlie Kirk’s rhetorical style exemplifies cold political violence. Framed as debate, it functions as domination. Cloaked in civility, it silences dissent. Justified as free speech, it delegitimizes pluralism.

The Lenin shadow is unmistakable. Lenin used speeches and trials to enforce monologism under communism; Kirk uses debates and social media to enforce monologism under MAGA conservatism. The ideologies differ, but the method converges: dialogue is replaced by performance, persuasion by coercion, pluralism by ridicule.

If left unchecked, such practices risk normalizing a culture where disagreement is feared, opponents are demonized, and only one voice is heard. This is not democracy but its shadow.




Section 4: The Authoritarian Core of “Only One Voice”

From “Great Again” to “Only One Voice”

The slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was initially deployed by Donald Trump as a nostalgic appeal to a mythic past of national strength, prosperity, and unity. At its surface, it resonated with familiar conservative themes: economic revival, patriotic pride, and cultural restoration. Yet as the movement evolved, the deeper function of MAGA became increasingly clear. Rather than a pluralistic vision of greatness, it crystallized into a demand for loyalty and conformity.

In practice, “Make America Great Again” now operates as “Make America Only One Voice.” The greatness invoked is not pluralism, diversity, or compromise, but the dominance of a singular worldview: nationalist, conservative, and Christian. To dissent is to betray; to question is to weaken. The Lenin shadow becomes visible here. Lenin, too, invoked grand historical missions—building socialism, liberating the proletariat—but in reality, these missions reduced society to one voice: the Party.



Monologism as Political Method

Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of monologism helps illuminate this dynamic. Monologism is a cultural and political condition where only one voice is deemed legitimate, where alternative perspectives are silenced, and where dialogue is replaced by proclamation. By contrast, dialogism—the coexistence of many voices—represents the essence of democratic culture.

Kirk’s discourse consistently trends toward monologism. He frames American identity as Christian, conservative, and patriotic in one narrow sense. Those who fall outside this definition—liberals, secularists, immigrants, dissenting Christians—are excluded from the symbolic community of the nation. Monologism demands not merely agreement but uniformity.

The implications are profound. When America is defined as only one voice, constitutional democracy is hollowed out. Elections, debates, and institutions may remain, but their pluralist substance is gone. What remains is the façade of democracy without its spirit.



Selective Mourning and Symbolic Hierarchies

One striking feature of authoritarian movements is their selective empathy—the construction of symbolic hierarchies of whose lives matter. In the Soviet Union, workers and soldiers who served the Party were memorialized, while millions of famine victims were erased from history. In Nazi Germany, Aryan soldiers were glorified while Jewish lives were devalued.

In the MAGA movement, a similar logic appears in symbolic practices of mourning. When prominent conservative media figures or MAGA celebrities die, the movement enacts collective rituals of grief—flags lowered, tributes delivered, speeches made. By contrast, when ordinary Americans die in tragedies such as mass shootings, opioid overdoses, or systemic neglect, the response is muted, deflected, or ignored.

Kirk participates in this selective mourning. He emphasizes the deaths of figures who serve his narrative while minimizing the suffering of those outside the movement. This hierarchy of empathy reinforces the insider–outsider divide: some deaths are sacred, others invisible.

The Lenin shadow is again visible. Just as Lenin elevated “revolutionary martyrs” while silencing the memory of famine victims, Kirk elevates MAGA insiders while ignoring the suffering of outsiders. Selective mourning enforces the logic of one voice: only those who echo the movement’s truth deserve remembrance.



Loyalty Tests and Political Purity

Another authoritarian feature of the “one voice” dynamic is the use of loyalty tests. In Leninist politics, party members were constantly tested for ideological purity; deviation meant expulsion or worse. In Maoist China, the Cultural Revolution required endless demonstrations of loyalty to Mao, with failure to comply resulting in denunciation.

Kirk’s movement employs similar, if less violent, loyalty mechanisms. To be a true conservative, one must reject “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only), embrace Trump, affirm the Christian-nationalist vision, and oppose liberalism in all forms. Dissent is punished not by imprisonment but by exclusion: loss of platform, donor support, or community belonging.

This dynamic creates a chilling effect within the conservative movement itself. Young conservatives are pressured not merely to participate but to conform, to echo the one voice without deviation. The pluralism of conservatism—its historical debates over liberty, order, economics, and foreign policy—is erased. In its place stands ideological monolith.



The Ritualization of Unity

Authoritarian monologism also manifests in rituals of unity: rallies, chants, and symbols that enforce collective identity. Turning Point USA events, MAGA rallies, and Kirk’s media productions function not only as political gatherings but as ritualized affirmations of one voice.

At these events, chants like “USA! USA!” or “Build the wall!” reduce complex political issues to uniform slogans. The audience is not encouraged to deliberate but to echo. The ritual enacts conformity, reinforcing the sense that only one voice exists.

This ritualization mirrors Leninist practices. Soviet rallies, parades, and chants reduced individuals to participants in a collective chorus. The message was not dialogue but discipline. Kirk’s events may lack the coercive machinery of the state, but their cultural function is similar: to rehearse and normalize monologism.



Delegitimization of Opposition

The authoritarian core of “only one voice” is most visible in the treatment of opposition. For Kirk, liberals and progressives are not merely rivals but existential threats. They are accused of destroying America, corrupting youth, and betraying God. This demonization forecloses compromise.

Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) warn that democracies die when parties refuse to accept opponents as legitimate. Kirk’s rhetoric accelerates this erosion. When opposition is illegitimate, elections become loyalty contests, not deliberative processes. When dissent is betrayal, freedom of speech becomes meaningless.

This is the danger of the Lenin shadow: the transformation of political rivalry into political heresy. Lenin delegitimized the Mensheviks; Kirk delegitimizes liberals. The ideologies differ, but the authoritarian method persists.



From Cold Violence to Potential Hot Violence

The authoritarian logic of one voice does not remain confined to rhetoric. History shows that cold political violence—stigmatization, humiliation, delegitimization—often escalates into hot violence. When one voice monopolizes legitimacy, suppression of others becomes inevitable.

In the MAGA context, the potential for escalation is evident. The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol revealed how rhetoric of loyalty, betrayal, and existential struggle can erupt into physical violence. Kirk’s insistence on monologism contributes to this dangerous trajectory. When only one voice is legitimate, dissenters become enemies to be silenced not only verbally but physically.



Conclusion

The authoritarian core of Kirk’s discourse lies in its demand for one voice. “Make America Great Again” has become “Make America Only One Voice.” This transformation enacts monologism: selective mourning, loyalty tests, ritualized unity, and delegitimization of opponents.

The Lenin shadow is undeniable. Lenin reduced Marxism to one voice, silencing all rivals. Kirk reduces America to one voice, delegitimizing dissenters. Both reflect the same authoritarian method, even as their ideologies differ.

If allowed to normalize, this logic threatens the very foundation of American democracy. A pluralist system cannot survive on one voice. Only by defending dialogism—the coexistence of many voices—can democracy resist the shadow of authoritarianism.




Section 5: Fear, Hatred, and the Manufacturing of Enemies


Fear as a Political Technology

Fear is among the oldest political tools. It simplifies complexity into stark choices: survival or destruction, loyalty or betrayal, safety or chaos. Political psychologists Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen (2000) show that fear lowers cognitive defenses and makes citizens more susceptible to appeals for conformity and obedience. Authoritarian movements consistently exploit this dynamic.

Lenin invoked fear of counter-revolution to justify repression. Fascist leaders conjured fear of internal enemies—Jews, communists, “degenerates.” Mao mobilized fear of “class enemies” to justify purges. In each case, fear was not simply a reaction to external conditions but a manufactured technology of control.

Charlie Kirk’s discourse fits squarely into this tradition. He frames social, cultural, and geopolitical issues as existential threats to America’s survival. Immigration is portrayed not as a policy debate but as an “invasion.” Universities are depicted not as flawed institutions but as indoctrination camps corrupting youth. Support for Ukraine is cast not as a geopolitical calculation but as betrayal of the American people. Fear saturates his rhetoric, narrowing the space for reasoned deliberation.



Manufacturing Enemies: The Us–Them Binary

Fear requires a target. Thus, authoritarian politics pairs fear with the manufacturing of enemies. Kirk’s discourse exemplifies this dynamic through constant deployment of the us–them binary.
• Immigrants are cast as invaders, threatening to “replace” or overwhelm American citizens.
• Universities are depicted as controlled by “Marxists” intent on brainwashing students.
• Liberals are described as not just mistaken but malicious, seeking to destroy freedom.
• Media is framed as the enemy of the people, spreading lies to weaken America.

This binary does more than mobilize support; it delegitimizes opponents. If liberals are existential enemies, dialogue is pointless. If immigrants are invaders, compassion is weakness. If universities are indoctrination camps, academic freedom is dangerous. Each enemy serves to reinforce the necessity of one voice.

The Lenin shadow is visible again. Lenin manufactured enemies—the bourgeoisie, kulaks, Trotskyists—to unify the movement and justify repression. Kirk does the same, albeit with different targets and within democratic constraints. The logic is identical: mobilization through scapegoating.



Hatred as the Glue of Community

Fear mobilizes, but hatred binds. Whereas fear is a fleeting emotion, hatred endures, solidifying group identity against a permanent enemy. Hatred transforms politics into warfare, where compromise is treason and coexistence impossible.

Kirk’s rhetoric frequently cultivates hatred. He describes progressives as evil, portrays secularists as demonic, and frames liberals as destroyers of civilization. This is not disagreement but demonization. By casting opponents as morally corrupt or existentially threatening, Kirk turns politics into a cosmic struggle of good versus evil.

This strategy mirrors the authoritarian use of hatred throughout history. Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as subhuman enemies, legitimizing their annihilation. Stalinist rhetoric demonized “enemies of the people,” paving the way for purges. Maoist campaigns whipped up hatred against landlords and intellectuals. Kirk’s demonization lacks such catastrophic consequences—for now—but the underlying method is the same: hatred as political glue.



The Ukraine Example: Echoes of Authoritarian Narratives

Perhaps the clearest case of Kirk’s manufacturing of enemies is his discourse on Ukraine. Rather than framing U.S. support for Ukraine as a strategic effort to deter authoritarian aggression, Kirk portrays it as a betrayal of the American people. He depicts aid to Ukraine as theft from Americans, implying that elites care more for foreigners than for citizens.

This rhetoric echoes Russian propaganda, which seeks to fracture Western solidarity by framing support for Ukraine as illegitimate. Whether intentional or not, Kirk’s discourse functions as an echo chamber for authoritarian narratives abroad. The Lenin shadow extends beyond America: by aligning, however inadvertently, with Putin’s framing, Kirk participates in the global circulation of authoritarian discourse.

This case illustrates the danger of one-voice politics. Complex geopolitical realities—sovereignty, alliances, deterrence—are reduced to slogans. Fear is manufactured (Americans betrayed by elites), an enemy identified (Ukraine or its supporters), and hatred mobilized (against liberals who back aid). In this way, Kirk’s rhetoric transforms foreign policy into culture war fodder, reinforcing monologism.



The Psychological Mechanisms of Fear and Hatred

The effectiveness of Kirk’s rhetoric lies in its exploitation of psychological mechanisms. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) shows that individuals derive self-esteem from group membership. When leaders emphasize intergroup threats, followers cling more tightly to in-groups and denigrate out-groups.

Fear heightens this effect. Huddy, Feldman, Taber, and Lahav (2005) found that perceived threat increases authoritarian attitudes, making individuals more willing to restrict civil liberties and support strong leaders. Kirk’s constant invocation of threats—cultural decline, demographic replacement, foreign betrayal—activates this authoritarian response.

Hatred then sustains it. Once opponents are demonized, reversing polarization becomes nearly impossible. Compromise appears immoral, and pluralism appears dangerous. This is how democracies erode: not through coups alone but through the steady cultivation of fear and hatred.



The Lenin Shadow: Enemies as Political Necessity

Lenin’s regime provides a direct historical parallel. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks faced no shortage of real challenges: economic collapse, foreign invasion, internal dissent. Yet Lenin insisted that survival required identifying and crushing “enemies of the people.” The very category of enemy was politically necessary. Without enemies, the unity of the movement would collapse.

Kirk’s politics follows the same logic. His movement requires constant enemies to sustain itself: liberals, immigrants, universities, elites, foreign beneficiaries. Without these enemies, the urgency of his rhetoric would fade, and pluralism might re-emerge. Thus, fear and hatred are not incidental but essential. They are the oxygen of one-voice politics.



Implications for Democratic Pluralism

The manufacture of enemies corrodes democratic pluralism in three ways:
1. Delegitimization of Opposition. Opponents are no longer rivals but existential threats. This forecloses dialogue and compromise.
2. Normalization of Hatred. Hatred becomes an accepted mode of political discourse, eroding norms of civility and empathy.
3. Erosion of Shared Reality. Complex issues are reduced to simplistic binaries, making rational deliberation impossible.

The result is a hollowing of democracy. Institutions may remain, but their pluralist spirit is gone. This is the Lenin shadow: different narrative, same method.



Conclusion

Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric demonstrates how fear and hatred function as political technologies. By manufacturing enemies—immigrants, liberals, universities, foreign beneficiaries—he mobilizes loyalty and enforces monologism. Fear simplifies; hatred binds. Together, they sustain the authoritarian logic of one voice.

The parallels with Lenin are undeniable. Lenin invoked enemies to justify repression; Kirk invokes enemies to delegitimize opposition. Both treat pluralism not as a democratic necessity but as a threat to be eliminated.

If this logic continues unchecked, the costs will be profound: a polarized society, a poisoned civic culture, and an eroded democracy where only one voice is heard. Fear and hatred may sustain movements, but history shows they ultimately consume those who wield them.




Section 6: Empathy, Pluralism, and Democratic Alternatives


The Human Foundation of Democracy

If Sections 1–5 have traced the authoritarian methods in Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric—monologism, cold violence, selective mourning, and the manufacture of enemies—this final section turns toward the alternative: a politics grounded in empathy and pluralism.

Democracy is not merely a set of institutions but a moral orientation. It presupposes that individuals, regardless of ideology, race, class, or faith, are equal bearers of dignity. Robert Dahl (1989) describes this as the principle of intrinsic equality—every citizen has an equal right to participate in collective decision-making. Without empathy for the equal humanity of others, democracy degenerates into empty ritual, vulnerable to capture by authoritarian movements.

Charlie Kirk’s discourse erodes this foundation by treating dissenters as enemies, outsiders, or traitors. His version of America is monologic, not dialogic; exclusive, not inclusive. To counter this, democracy must be defended not only at the institutional level but also at the cultural and moral level—through the cultivation of empathy.



Empathy as a Political Virtue

Empathy is often dismissed as a private sentiment, but philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum (2011) and political theorists such as Danielle Allen (2004) argue that empathy is a political virtue. It allows citizens to imagine the perspective of others, even opponents, and to extend recognition beyond one’s own group. Without empathy, pluralism collapses into tribalism.

Kirk’s rhetoric exemplifies the dangers of empathy’s absence. When immigrants are framed as invaders, their humanity disappears. When liberals are demonized as evil, their suffering no longer matters. When students or dissenters are ridiculed, their dignity is erased. Each act of dehumanization corrodes the civic fabric.

By contrast, democratic resilience depends on empathetic imagination. To sustain pluralism, citizens must learn to see opponents not as existential threats but as fellow participants in a shared civic project. This does not mean erasing disagreement but reframing it as legitimate.



Pluralism as Institutionalized Empathy

Pluralism is the structural form of empathy. It translates moral recognition into political practice. Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of dialogism captures this: societies thrive when multiple voices coexist, clash, and enrich one another. Democracy, in this sense, is dialogism made institutional.

Constitutional protections for free speech, assembly, and religious liberty are not mere legal technicalities; they are safeguards for empathy. They ensure that no single voice dominates, that even marginalized perspectives have space. When Kirk reduces America to one voice, he undermines this institutional empathy. His monologism erases the very conditions that allow democratic disagreement to flourish.

Restoring pluralism thus requires not only defending institutions but reaffirming the moral logic beneath them: every voice has value, even when we disagree.



Reclaiming Debate as Dialogue

One practical site for this restoration is the practice of debate itself. Kirk frames his campus events as debates, yet as shown in Section 3, they function as performances of domination. To counter this, democratic culture must reclaim debate as dialogue.

True debate is not about humiliating opponents but about mutual inquiry. Habermas (1996) calls this the ideal speech situation: communication free of coercion, where participants are motivated by the search for understanding. While such purity is rarely achieved, the aspiration matters. It sets a standard against which civic discourse can be measured.

Universities, media, and civic organizations must cultivate debate in this dialogic sense. Rather than rewarding soundbites and outrage, they must foster patience, listening, and critical reasoning. Only then can debate resist degeneration into cold political violence.



Beyond Religion and Ideology

Another antidote to monologism is to distinguish between faith or ideology and their political instrumentalization. Religion, when reduced to ideology, becomes a weapon of exclusion. Conservatism, when hollowed into dogma, becomes authoritarian.

Yet religion and conservatism also contain resources for pluralism. Christian theology emphasizes compassion, humility, and the equal worth of all souls. Conservative thought values prudence, limits on power, and respect for institutions. By rediscovering these deeper traditions, citizens can resist the reduction of faith and ideology into weapons.

The challenge, then, is not to abandon religion or conservatism but to reclaim them from their instrumentalization. To practice religion with humility rather than absolutism; to practice conservatism with prudence rather than dogma. This reclamation is itself an act of empathy—acknowledging the depth of traditions rather than reducing them to slogans.



Historical Lessons

History teaches that societies which abandon empathy for monologism pay a heavy price. Lenin’s Soviet Union, built on the exclusion of enemies, produced mass repression and famine. Fascist Germany, built on hatred, culminated in genocide and war. Maoist China, built on ideological purity, descended into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution.

Each of these movements began with rhetoric similar to Kirk’s: simple binaries, enemies manufactured, pluralism dismissed. Each promised greatness through unity, and each produced catastrophe. The lesson is clear: one-voice politics is not merely dangerous but deadly.

For America, the stakes are existential. If Kirk’s monologism gains further ground, democratic pluralism may wither. The institutions of democracy may remain, but their spirit will be gone. Only by defending empathy can America resist the Lenin shadow.



Empathy as Resistance

To affirm empathy is itself an act of resistance. In a culture saturated by fear and hatred, choosing to recognize the humanity of opponents is countercultural. It defies the authoritarian script.

This resistance operates on multiple levels:
• Individual: practicing empathy in daily encounters, refusing to demonize neighbors, colleagues, or classmates.
• Institutional: reforming media and education to foster dialogism rather than outrage.
• Political: enacting policies that protect minority rights, resist exclusion, and promote equal participation.

Empathy is not weakness. It is the moral courage to resist fear with recognition, to resist hatred with compassion, to resist monologism with pluralism.



Conclusion

Charlie Kirk’s discourse exemplifies the Lenin shadow: the authoritarian method of monopolizing truth, silencing dissent, and mobilizing fear. Yet history also shows that this shadow is not inevitable. Societies can resist. The antidote is empathy—moral recognition translated into pluralist institutions.

Constitutional democracy is empathy made structural: the protection of multiple voices, the recognition of equal dignity, the safeguarding of dissent. Kirk’s one-voice politics seeks to hollow this out. The task of citizens, scholars, and leaders is to defend it.

In the end, the choice is stark. Societies can embrace monologism—one voice, one truth, one authority—or they can embrace pluralism—many voices, dialogic truth, shared authority. The former leads to fear, hatred, and authoritarianism. The latter leads to recognition, dignity, and democracy.

To resist the Lenin shadow in America, empathy must become not only a personal virtue but a civic principle. Only then can democracy remain more than a façade—only then can it endure.



Final Conclusion: Charlie Kirk and the Persistence of the Lenin Shadow


The analysis across six sections has demonstrated that Charlie Kirk’s discourse, though situated in 21st-century American conservatism, exhibits structural continuities with authoritarian traditions exemplified by Leninism. The Lenin shadow is not an ideological inheritance but a methodological one: the reduction of politics to one voice, one truth, one authority.

Synthesizing the Six Dimensions


1. The Leninist Shadow

Kirk mirrors Lenin in monopolizing truth, simplifying complex realities into binaries, delegitimizing opponents, and cultivating absolute certainty. Although their ideological narratives diverge—communism versus Christian nationalism—their methods converge in authoritarian monologism.


2. Religion Without Religion

Kirk transforms Christianity into a political weapon, stripping it of theological nuance and diversity. This hollowing mirrors Lenin’s reduction of Marxism into catechism. In both cases, rich traditions are repurposed into tools of political exclusion.


3. Cold Political Violence

Kirk’s so-called debates are less about dialogue than domination. By humiliating opponents, deploying rhetorical fog, and exploiting social media amplification, he practices cold political violence: coercion disguised as civility. Lenin staged show trials; Kirk stages campus debates. Both perform power under the mask of dialogue.


4. Only One Voice

MAGA’s slogan “Make America Great Again” has become “Make America Only One Voice.” Through selective mourning, loyalty tests, ritualized unity, and delegitimization of opposition, Kirk enforces a monologic vision of America. Lenin reduced Marxism to one voice; Kirk reduces America to one voice.


5. Fear and Hatred

Kirk manufactures enemies—immigrants, liberals, universities, elites, foreign beneficiaries—framing them as existential threats. Fear mobilizes; hatred binds. This dynamic parallels Lenin’s constant invocation of enemies of the people. Both treat pluralism not as democratic necessity but as danger.


6. Empathy and Pluralism

Against this authoritarian method, democracy requires empathy: recognition of the equal dignity of opponents. Pluralism institutionalizes empathy, protecting multiple voices. By reclaiming religion, conservatism, and debate from their instrumentalization, citizens can resist monologism and sustain democracy.



The Broader Implications

The significance of this analysis extends beyond Kirk as an individual. He is not unique but symptomatic of a larger pattern in democratic decline. Around the world, populist and authoritarian leaders deploy similar methods: simplifying narratives, weaponizing faith or tradition, delegitimizing opponents, and manufacturing fear. The Lenin shadow reappears whenever leaders abandon pluralism for absolutism.

The danger is that these methods corrode democracy not through coups but through culture. When citizens internalize one-voice logic, when institutions tolerate selective empathy, when fear and hatred become normalized, democracy is hollowed out from within. The external shell may remain—elections, courts, parliaments—but the spirit of pluralism dies.



Historical Lessons

History provides sobering lessons. Lenin’s Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of repression and fear. Fascist Germany and Italy left destruction and genocide. Maoist China produced famine and cultural devastation. In each case, movements promised greatness through unity but delivered catastrophe through monologism.

Kirk’s America is not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Yet the methods he employs echo those regimes in miniature. The danger is not that America will become identical to past dictatorships but that it will drift toward a culture where pluralism is delegitimized and authoritarian methods normalized.



The Necessity of Empathy

The antidote lies in empathy. Empathy resists the reduction of opponents to enemies. It affirms that even those with different beliefs are human beings with dignity. When institutionalized through pluralist democracy, empathy protects dissent, fosters dialogue, and sustains freedom.

To resist the Lenin shadow, America must reaffirm empathy as both a civic virtue and a political principle. This requires cultural renewal—educating citizens to value pluralism, reforming institutions to foster dialogism, and resisting the weaponization of religion and ideology.



Final Reflections

Charlie Kirk is not Lenin. But he operates in Lenin’s shadow. His methods—monologism, cold violence, fear, and hatred—echo authoritarian patterns that history has repeatedly exposed as destructive. By naming and analyzing this shadow, we can better understand the stakes of contemporary American politics.

The choice, ultimately, is between one voice and many voices. Between monologism and dialogism. Between authoritarianism and democracy. Between fear and empathy.

History warns of the costs of choosing one voice. The task of this generation is to defend the many voices—to protect pluralism, empathy, and dignity against the shadows of absolutism. Only then can democracy endure.


About the Author

ButterflyMan is the author of the 30 volume Future of Chinese Society book series and Red Hats Revolution. Born in the countryside of Mainland China, he personally experienced life under the Chinese Communist Party before traveling widely and engaging in business and residence across the world. Drawing on these experiences, he shares insights into authoritarianism and democracy, offering readers a different perspective from which to confront truth.
More at ButterflyMan.com




References

Allen, D. (2004). Talking to strangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005

Gentile, E. (2005). Politics as religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00144.x

Kirk, C. (2022, June 5). Remarks at Turning Point USA Faith event. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hZlWmKirkFaith

Kirk, C. (2023, March 10). Twitter post. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1634242112

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York: Crown.

Lih, L. (2006). Lenin rediscovered: What is to be done? in context. Leiden: Brill.

Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nadler, A. (2022). Christian nationalism and partisan media: Intertwined narratives. International Journal of Communication, 16, 3456–3478. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18366

Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Service, R. (2000). Lenin: A biography. London: Macmillan.

Snyder, T. (2017). On tyranny: Twenty lessons from the twentieth century. New York: Tim Duggan Books.

Stanley, J. (2018). How fascism works: The politics of us and them. New York: Random House.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.