Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) has drawn sharp criticism for his comments regarding the chilling reactions to the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk. During a joint interview with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Lankford seemingly underplayed the outrage from conservative circles over leftists who celebrated Kirk’s murder. He stated that those who cheered should not lose their jobs as a result of their expressions. This stance has frustrated many and utilized a tone that could be construed as dismissive to the very real concerns of his constituents.
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was murdered on September 10, sending shockwaves through conservative communities. Almost immediately, individuals across social media platforms began to celebrate the event. Comments ranging from congratulatory to overtly hostile were made by various professionals, including judges, military officers, and educators. The grotesque glorification of such violence stirred outrage among conservatives who began documenting these leftist celebrations and reported them to employers to seek consequences.
As conservative anger mounted, many employers reacted, firing individuals who celebrated Kirk’s assassination. Lankford, however, brushed off this widespread backlash during his television appearance. “This is about protecting the individual businesses,” he claimed when pressed about whether he believed it was right for employers to fire those who celebrated Kirk’s death. Instead of recognizing the gravity of the situation, he characterized the conservative response as mere “cancel culture,” neglecting the deeper implications of a political landscape that seems to embrace murder as a legitimate form of dissent.
Lankford’s comments did not sit well with many viewers. Critics are taking to social media platforms to voice their outrage. One user bluntly stated that “No Republican who doesn’t have a big problem with liberals calling for the death of conservatives needs to be in office.” This critique powerfully encapsulates the sense of betrayal felt by many who view Lankford’s comments as cowardly in the face of violence against conservatives.
Coons echoed Lankford’s rhetoric, referring to cancel culture as a “real challenge to us, to balancing free speech with positions of responsibility.” His remarks seemed to prioritize the reputations of those celebrating murder over the moral implications of such actions. He advised caution in online statements, not because of the abhorrent nature of celebrating a killing, but likely due to the repercussions faced by those in his circle when they express extreme views.
Viewer reactions have been vivid and harsh. One commentator argued that it was fundamentally different to celebrate murder compared to merely making controversial comments. “They are free to say whatever they want,” the user remarked, “they are NOT free from the social consequences.” Such sentiments reveal a growing frustration with leading voices who seem indifferent to the real-world impacts of their dismissive comments on violence against political adversaries.
This event raises significant questions about the state of political discourse in America today. The fearlessness with which some individuals celebrate violence is alarming, and the urge for accountability from employers reflects a desire among many to hold individuals responsible for their public expressions.
As Lankford approaches reelection in 2028, he may find this backlash difficult to navigate. Conservatives are calling for accountability from those in positions of power, and if Lankford continues to sidestep these deeply rooted concerns, he risks losing the support of constituents who are increasingly unwilling to tolerate complacency regarding violence against their ideology.
"*" indicates required fields
