What a difference in how Americans reacted to the deaths of Charlie Kirk vs. George Floyd

A New York Post opinion piece argues that Americans reacted very differently to the deaths of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and George Floyd, illustrating how partisan narratives shape perceptions of violence and protest. The author, Victor Davis Hanson, contends that the two episodes unfolded under contrasting political conditions and that those contrasts reveal broader patterns in U.S. politics.

The piece contends there were no mass riots after Kirk’s death and no sustained calls for street demonstrations of the kind seen after Floyd’s death. It describes Kirk’s followers as promoting peaceful civic engagement—urging people to register to vote and participate in elections—through Turning Point USA, the youth-advocacy nonprofit Kirk led. This framing is used to argue that the Kirk episode did not mirror the scale or trajectory of the Floyd aftermath.

The op-ed also describes the shooter, Tyler Robinson, as someone who harbored strong anti-conservative sentiment and who engraved bullets with anti-fascist and transgender references; it notes that Robinson lived with a transgender partner who was aligned with left-leaning politics. The piece frames these details as illustrating a specific dynamic behind Kirk’s death and the political environment surrounding it.

By contrast, the article argues Floyd’s death was used by elements on the left to push a defined policy agenda, asserting that calls for reform—such as defunding the police, cashless bail, decriminalization of theft and DEI mandates—were advanced during a period of unrest that the author says did not enjoy broad, durable popular support. The op-ed contends that, unlike Kirk’s case, the Floyd episode was leveraged to justify long-running protests and aggressive policy pushes that the author attributes to the political left.

The author maintains that the Kirk case demonstrates peaceful, lawful civic engagement and political organizing. He contends the post-Floyd era saw an effort to sustain pressure through protests and rhetorical appeals that sought to mobilize a broader, more confrontational agenda, even as public sentiment remained divided on many of these issues. The piece concludes with a call to evaluate how violence and protest are framed in political discourse and to consider the implications for future elections and policy debates. Victor Davis Hanson is described as a distinguished fellow at the Center for American Greatness.

These arguments appear in the New York Post as part of a broader discussion about how media outlets and political actors portray violent events and their aftermaths. The piece emphasizes peaceful civic engagement as a counterpoint to violent or disruptive tactics, urging readers to consider the role of narrative in shaping public opinion and policy outcomes.