We are Charlie Kirk: Politics and Social Media, a Toxic Mix
Lily Nie and Marina Yan
“We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We’ll fight for the gospel, we’ll honor his name;” this AI generated song about the deceased far-right activist, Charlie James Kirk, is the latest political song to go viral.
Pop culture and politics have long shared a complicated, symbiotic relationship. Pew research centre found that a fifth of U.S. adults now regularly get news on TikTok, and it begs the question: do the pros outweigh the cons? Does the intersection between pop culture and politics increase societal awareness, or does it undermine the nuance of such topics?
On one hand, in an age where increasing numbers of Gen Z feel disconnected from the political sphere, the ability to wield social media and pop culture in your favor is critical in the rise of becoming a major political figure. Zohran Mamdani exemplifies this: he won the New York City mayoral campaign while also connecting with young people worldwide, amassing 10.7 million Instagram followers - even though NYC’s population is 8.8 million.
Not only has this convergence benefited the left, but also the right. Charlie Kirk leveraged pop culture and politics in a way for his own activism, by utilizing popular mediums like podcasts and vertical video. He often made controversial points on the debate stage and broadcasted it to the whole world, capitalising off his “gotcha” moments.
The other side of the coin highlights the dangers of oversimplification or trivialisation of serious political topics. It is the medium of short, easily accessible videos, where our ultimate goal is to maximize dopamine boost, that has engineered us to become only susceptible to discussion and learning when it is “fun.” But politics is not meant to be entertainment; it shapes the very world we exist in, and affects the lives of millions. To be able to make a joke out of political issues reflects an inherent undercurrent of privilege involved; only those who are exempt from the direct consequences of politics can afford to treat it as a satire. Whether or not the AI-generated song We Are Charlie Kirk was meant to be satire or not, the comedification of Kirk as a political figure undermines the role which he played in the rise of the MAGA movement. Similarly, Epstein's crimes, ties to political figures, and his suicide are all serious topics with enormous impacts on many people, and should not be viewed as a mockery of MAGA supporters. The memeification and sensationalised commentary on this topic—while drawing attention to his actions, also risks minimizing the experiences of his victims as well as broader societal implications such as the corruption within the elite powers. When such complexities are reduced to simple jokes, we lose the ability to think critically and confront ethical issues as a collective.
A counterargument to the cons, however, could be that in modern contexts traction matters more than morality. In a world where many rarely engage with political media at all, viral but shallow engagement is better than none at all. Any publicity is good publicity, as the saying goes. Politics is inherently amoral; it is all about power, practicality, and securing popularity. As written in The Dictator’s Handbook by Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, bad behavior is always good politics. The fundamental goal of politicians is “to come to power,” and “to stay in power,” not safeguarding dignity or promoting critical confrontation of issues. Therefore, if politics does not place weight upon morality, why should the audience be held up to such high standards either?
While this criticism may be factually true, it does not excuse the immorality of the mocking of political events. As Socrates once said in a conversation with Crito, the “opinions of the wise are good, and the opinions of the unwise are evil.” Therefore, our morality should not rely upon the opinions and actions of others; two wrongs do not make a right.
Thus, when it comes to principles, the pros do not outweigh the cons, as the unethical nature is apparent. Nonetheless, in terms of political strategy, utilising pop culture to gain traction and fame is arguably an inherent necessity for political survival in the attentional economy.
This status quo presented is not merely a testament to the intersection between pop culture and politics, but a testament to a deep-rooted apathy towards the individual within political nature. As writer Mark Davis wrote in critique of neo-noir film, which attempts to criticize the evil of humanity through displaying it in its blatant form, in “pitch darkness there is no light left to cast shadows, and evil becomes a forensic banality.” Similarly, in the overly optimistic brightness of political satire, there is no darkness left to critically engage with the shadowy truth of the governing establishment.
