THE RISE OF THE "CHARLIE KIRK CONSERVATIVES"

by Robert Bidinotto

(from a 9/24/25 Facebook post)
 
 After watching the televised memorial for Charlie Kirk on September 21, 2025, I'm convinced that his martyrdom for his convictions -- and martyrdom is the only proper word for it -- is going to be transformational to the country, in ways people don't yet grasp or anticipate. 

In recent decades, for reasons many of us know, the American "narrative," like the Christian "narrative," have been under relentless assault by the enemies of Western civilization. The stories undergirding both America and Christianity have stopped being credible or resonant with millions. Cut loose from the steadying anchor and sure rudder these narratives once provided, our society has gone adrift, floating aimlessly into the shoals of cynicism and the swamps of decadence, then sinking into an undertow of political disintegration and division -- and thus allowing, at home and abroad, the incursions of piratical nihilists to plunder and scavenge from the wreckage of our civilization. 

Spiritually, the loss of our unifying Narratives has left a gaping hole in the minds and hearts of Americans (and Western societies, generally) -- a pervasive sense of hopelessness, aimlessness, and anxiety. 

Yes, all this stems from the absence of a coherent, compelling story -- a Core Narrative about the world that is both explanatory and inspiring, that makes sense of the world and provides individuals a purposeful role and a meaningful identity -- a Core Narrative for individuals that, simultaneously, provides a unifying mythology for the broader society and culture. 

As a teenager, Charlie Kirk sought and found such a Narrative for himself in Christianity...but also in America. In his mind and heart, Charlie wedded the Narrative of Christianity to the Narrative of America: to "the American dream" -- and to the Enlightenment values of individualism, self-responsibility, self-reliance, personal liberty, individual rights, free speech, free-market capitalism, and constitutionally limited government. In his mind and heart, he wove together those two threads of Narrative and Myth -- the Christian and the American (with its Greco-Roman and Enlightenment roots) -- into one seamless fabric...into one Core Narrative. 

That Core Narrative became Charlie Kirk. Under its spell, Charlie became a human dynamo of evangelical passion. It transformed him into a young man of boundless self-confidence, irrepressible optimism, passionate truth-seeking, and fearless action. Aided by extraordinary gifts of native intelligence, authentic idealism, appealing good looks, and self-acquired oratorical ability, Charlie's Narrative vision became a compelling magnet that attracted thousands -- especially young lost souls, adrift in the moral and spiritual swamps of contemporary America. 

I have fashioned my own Core Narrative. In many ways, it overlaps with Charlie Kirk's. Its roots and rationale draw mainly from the secular side of the American Enlightenment and Greco-Roman traditions, and not the Christian side. 

Still, in terms of attitudes and practices of daily living -- in terms of how he and I would approach work, human relationships, and politics -- there is not much difference between my vision and that of the late Charlie Kirk. I could very easily, and very happily, live and flourish in the America he envisioned -- and among the kind of Christian Americans that would inhabit it. 

That became obvious to me during the huge, globally watched celebration of Charlie's life on Sunday. As the cameras panned over the thousands and thousands of decent, peaceful, normal Americans in that enormous audience, I thought: "These people are the poorest excuses for 'fascists' I have ever seen." 

I'd like to address the rest of this message primarily to my secular-individualist friends and colleagues, including non-religious Objectivists, libertarians, and conservatives. 

Watching the Charlie Kirk memorial -- and observing how his exemplary personal life, idealism, and decency have touched, inspired, and galvanized huge and growing numbers of Americans -- reinforced my conviction about the irreplaceable necessity of developing not only a philosophy, but also a Core Narrative, to guide individuals and society. 

As I have often written and said, a philosophy and a Core Narrative serve interrelated, but separate purposes. Both offer individuals an integrated view of the world and their role in it. But a Core Narrative is a story that dramatizes your worldview: it offers you a role in that drama, and an identity in the world; and it motivates you to take action. A philosophy, by contrast, only explains your worldview, teasing out its many implications and offering an abstract, systematic rationale for them. But being conscious and abstract, a philosophy has little power to touch your subconscious wellsprings of emotion and motivation -- to personalize those abstractions and inspire you to act. 

A philosophy is like a map to help you chart the course of your life. A Core Narrative is like a video that helps you visualize and experience your life journey. A philosophy is like looking at architectural blueprints of your planned house. A Core Narrative is like taking a 3-D virtual tour through your planned residence -- or like looking at an actual miniature model that helps you experience the reality of your future home, in the here and now. 

And that leads to the problem I pose to my secular philosophical and political colleagues. Yes, we have charted terrific philosophical maps and detailed blueprints for our worldview; but we don't have enough compelling videos, virtual tours, and actual models for our worldview to be properly, fully experienced. 

Now, many of you are going to reply, "What about the novels of Ayn Rand? She created great models of inspiring characters!" 

And so she did. But only two novels -- and written in a style and voice and level of abstraction that don't speak to everyone today. At best, I could say, "Yes, but we need more like these -- a lot more." 

But I think we need something else, too. And I'm not sure we can get it in our lifetimes...or even in the next century. 

You see, the Core Narratives of Christianity and of America have acquired their mythological status and resonance precisely because of their distance from our era. Those who revere historical characters from the Bible or America's founding can do so because the mists of time mask those people's personal foibles and failures, leaving us with stories mainly about the best of their character and achievements. The passing of centuries thus has allowed them to rise to legendary and heroic stature. 

Today, however, even the most exemplary figures are not immune from 24/7 reputational dissection by social media gossips, podcasters, and cable news commentators. It took centuries for Christianity to develop, because the claims of its believers were spread by word of mouth, and not subject to legions of often-hostile "fact checkers" and reputational smears in viral messages. But imagine if Jesus and his Apostles had to undergo a daily onslaught of instant, intrusive scrutiny, "fake news," and internet rumor-mongering. 

My point is that while creating a new Core Narrative for individuals is certainly possible in our time (Rand did that for thousands), creating a new cultural mythology for our entire society is a very different proposition. In America and globally, existing worldviews have social and cultural roots that harken back into antiquity. Uprooting and replacing this mythology with a new mythology would/will take a very long time -- and these days it would have to do so under the glaring spotlight and probing microscopes of the media.

 I think the best we secular individualists can do, for now, is to fashion, flesh out, and live our own Core Narrative(s)...as individuals. The proof of a Narrative's value will be what we make of our own lives. Then, over time -- decades, perhaps centuries -- some singular individual who heroically embodies such a Narrative will arise and stand out as its champion. That exemplary individual may then acquire mythic and legendary status. His own story might become the spark of a new cultural movement and mythology, turning his private Narrative into a social crusade akin to a secular individualist religion -- with its own infrastructure of ceremonies, rituals, and institutions commemorating the legend. 

A second thing we secular individualists can do, for now, is to stop regarding what I hereby label the "Charlie Kirk Conservatives" as our adversaries -- let alone as our "enemies" (like a few morons in Objectivist circles are doing). Far from it. Charlie Kirk may not have shared our metaphysics; but he shared most of our basic ethical and political premises, and in fact he was a model of reason, honesty, independence, integrity, productivity, and justice. He, and the thousands of followers who regard him as a role model, are our natural allies. As I said earlier, I could flourish happily in a world of Charlie Kirk Conservatives -- and so could you. 

For now, we secular individualists have a philosophy, but not a Core Narrative that is sufficiently developed and compelling enough to replace theirs. Nor do we have a heroic exemplar of our worldview who can capture the public imagination as has Charlie Kirk. Nor do we have the cultural legacy of such a hero: an infrastructure of ceremonies, rituals, and institutions that can forge social bonds and traditions built upon shared beliefs and values. We have little if any of that sort of thing -- not yet. 

And you can't replace Something with Nothing. 

I saw something emerging at the Kirk ceremony that, for the first time in decades, has given me real hope for America's future. I saw Charlie Kirk's personal integration of exemplary character, Christianity, and American Enlightenment ideas and values being fused into a Core Narrative that instantly captured the imagination of the country. I witnessed the personal story of Charlie Kirk being woven, before my eyes, into the Core Narratives of Christianity and the American Enlightenment, in a way that was reviving, in millions of people, a passionate, patriotic dedication to our Founding Fathers' legacy. 

His wife called the movement Charlie launched not a revolution, but "a revival." And so it is. I believe this movement is going to grow to become culturally and politically transformational -- and that Charlie Kirk is going to become a pivotal, legendary figure in American history. The story of his life and martyrdom will become an indelible chapter in the broader American Narrative. 

Through his willingness to converse and cooperate with political cousins in Objectivist and libertarian circles, Charlie Kirk will undoubtedly serve as an ecumenical role model for his movement, going forward. And we secular individualists would be colossal fools not to join with them, assist them, and defend them, whenever we can make common cause, culturally and politically. 

Charlie Kirk Conservatives are our natural compatriots in the defense of Western civilization from the nihilists. They represent the best of America, people whom we should welcome into our lives as our allies, as our neighbors, and -- yes -- as our friends. 
 

The Republican Crack-Up -- and the Path Forward

It is all transpiring as I have foreseen.

Not only has the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress completely capitulated to the Democrats, on every point, in crafting the October 2013 "budget agreement" (i.e., signing terms of unilateral Republican surrender); in doing so, the GOP also has signaled that it will not even try to exercise any of its lawful leverage to oppose any Democratic initiative in the future. On any such occasion, both sides now know that the Democrats inevitably will engineer some new "crisis"; that they and their media lapdogs will blame it on the Republicans; and that the Republicans -- terrified about being unpopular -- will cave.

Thus, what I years ago labeled the policy of "anticipatory capitulation" is now rooted in the Republican DNA. Looking down the road, they will notice and anticipate any potential confrontation in which they will be subjected to criticism . . . and terrified over that prospect, they will surrender preemptively. They already are doing this on the immigration issue, for example: working feverishly behind the scenes to engineer legislation that essentially anticipates and preemptively ratifies everything that the Democrats have ever dreamed of enacting (in other words, a new "Dream Act").

Conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh say they are "mystified" (his word) by how and why the GOP could so completely implode as any kind of alternative (let alone "opposition party") to the Democrats. Readers here know my answer:

He who shapes the Narrative, wins.

The Democrats have a Narrative. It is built on a primitive philosophical view of social relationships: a world of zero-sum tribalism, where all wealth is "social" and fixed in quantity; where it is not the product of individuals ("You didn't build that!"), but of the tribe, and thus tribally owned; where anyone's gain therefore comes only at the expense of someone else's loss; and thus where a benevolent Ruling Class elite must decide "fair" distributions of tribal wealth among all the tribal members. This atavistic worldview goes back to the dark days when people lived in caves; ironically, today it is labeled "progressive."

The Republicans, by contrast, have no Narrative. That's because they long ago abandoned the only plausible philosophical basis for a counter-Narrative to that of the Democrats: a worldview of creative, self-responsible individualism. In that worldview, human productivity means that wealth is not limited or fixed in quantity; it is produced by and therefore the property of individuals, not the tribe; social relationships therefore are not a zero-sum proposition, where some people gain at the expense of others: instead, they are "win-win," because productive people trade rather than take; and finally, no Ruling Class elite is wanted or needed, because it is both parasitical and dictatorial.

This modern, individualist worldview arose from the Enlightenment Era, and it represented a revolutionary advance over primitive tribalism. It is the worldview upon which Republicans could have fashioned a host of coherent, compelling, inspiring narratives. But it is a worldview that the party's liberal RINOs reject on principle, and that its Establishment pragmatists never understood.

The only serious repository for this individualist worldview in contemporary politics lies in one wing of the Republican Party: a loose, informal coalition of those labeled "constitutional conservatives," "libertarian populists," and "Tea Partiers." In the Senate, this wing comprises only a minority of the Republican caucus, which is still dominated by liberal RINOs (think John McCain) and pragmatic Establishment careerists (think Mitch McConnell). In the House, the conservative/libertarian/Tea Party wing actually constitutes a majority of the Republican caucus. However, among all House members, they constitute a numerical minority. That's because there are just enough turncoat RINOs and Establishment types (including Boehner and the leadership) to give Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats a de facto voting majority on serious issues.

That explains what is happening today (October 16, 2013) in the pivotal congressional budget vote, which ratifies not just everything that the Democrats wanted, but even ObamaCare funding.

First, in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership "negotiated" terms of total and unconditional surrender to Harry Reid and the Democrats, rolling over the GOP "Tea Party" minority led by Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Then, in the House, the Republican Establishment leader, John Boehner, agreed to let the Senate bill come to the floor for a straight vote (one he could have blocked procedurally). Even though the majority of House Republicans, who are principled Tea Partiers and constitutional conservatives, remain utterly opposed to this bill and will vote a resounding no, there are just enough RINOs and Establishment "moderates" who will join Pelosi and the Dems to pass the bill there, too.

And so, the Republican leadership in both houses has set in cement the existing membership roles within the Bipartisan Ruling Class: The collectivist Democrats will remain in charge, setting the progressive agenda as the Evil Party, while the careerist Republicans will act reliably as their passive rubber stamp, ratifying the progressive agenda as the Enabler Party.

Where does this leave things?

Right now, there is a concerted bipartisan effort to use Saul Alinsky tactics to destroy what I'll call the "Principled Individualist Wing" of the Republican Party: the constitutional conservatives, libertarian populists, and Tea Partiers. The Democratic left and the GOP's RINO/Establishment types will try to isolate, freeze, personalize, and demonize this Principled Individualist Wing -- starting, of course, with Ted Cruz, the individual they most fear, and therefore must destroy. It's already begun, but watch this effort ramp up in coming months.

My recommendations now?

First, all-out war within the GOP against the RINOs and the Establishment. After all, that war has already been declared against Principled Individualists by the RINOs; so there is no point in pretending that the two factions can ever peacefully co-exist within the same party. They disagree in principle; no compromise of principles is logically possible. One or the other faction must go.

In the House, the Principled Individualist Wing has already achieved a numerical advantage within the GOP caucus. But they have not yet moved to seize the reins of party leadership there. Until they do, they should realize that when push comes to shove, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy will always cave and sell them out at the last minute, as they did today, by letting the Senate budget bill come to the floor. That was a key decision; Boehner had the power to reject it; but the leadership team caved. In doing so, they proved, once and for all, that they ultimately are craven careerists, not principled leaders; that they are resigned to being de facto enablers of the Democrats; and that they are laughable as articulate advocates of any alternative Narrative.

In the Senate, the Principled Individualist Wing is a smaller but growing minority. Within the past two years they have established a strong beachhead within that body. Their members, though few, are young, superlatively articulate, and utterly intransigent -- in contrast to the old, mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed Establishment dinosaurs, who won't be around much longer. The goal here must be to hasten their departure, to knock off the worst of the Establishment and RINO population and replace them during upcoming primaries so as to achieve Individualist dominance within the Senate GOP caucus.

As that happens, the most important thing that must occur within the Republican Party is that its Principled Individualists learn how to craft NARRATIVES. First, an overarching individualist "meta-Narrative," telling the compelling, inspiring, positive vision of individual productive achievement and personal fulfillment under liberty. Second, drawing upon that meta-Narrative, specific "narratives" for specific issues and circumstances. 

Principled Individualists must stop communicating to the public at large in terms of wonkish abstractions and eye-glazing political-economic jargon. Instead, they must personalize and dramatize the issues, using the stories of real people who are either examples of heroic individualism, or victims of progressive oppression.

At a time when millions and millions of Americans are being individually victimized by leftist policies, who is telling their stories? Where are their champions? Why aren't they brought to appear, one after the other, before the cameras at congressional hearings? Why don't Principled Individualist politicians stand beside them at rallies, create photo-ops with them before local media, tell their stories again and again in their speeches? Where are the victims of ObamaCare, for example? Why do GOP congressmen ever bother to show up at a news conference without a host of them serving as their backdrop -- without telling their stories, or, better yet, letting them tell their own?

For many decades, the Democrats have become masters of the technique of turning victimization into political theater, in order to win public emotional sympathy. They have exploited such emotional sympathy to steamroller over every logical, theoretical, and empirical argument . . . they have none of the latter on their side. By contrast, while having all of those latter things on their side, why don't Principled Individualists use them as the basis for compelling, dramatic, sympathetic narratives? If they did that, then their arguments -- both logical and emotional -- would gain the force of a tidal wave . . . as Ronald Reagan knew and demonstrated.

This, I believe, is the path forward for Principled Individualists, whether within the Republican Party or out here in Flyover Country. 

Regarding the latter: I counsel you not to wait for some Man on a White Horse to ride into Washington as your champion. You have the power and intelligence to tell persuasive personal stories, drawing upon and applying to your own lives, families, friends, and circumstances. You can tell personal stories that embody and romanticize the aspirational elements of the American dream -- and that also dramatize and demonstrate the personal costs, tragedies, and victimizations generated by progressive statism.

If each of us does that, in his or her own life, then sad days like today in Washington will soon become fewer and less dispiriting. And eventually, we will be able to wake up each morning actually looking forward to watching a TV news program.

Take heart. We're only just beginning.