Mary Rooke Commentary and Analysis Writer
It won’t be shocking that reading The Atlantic’s op-ed attempting to draw a parallel between the cultural and political responses to the 2020 death of George Floyd and the 2025 murder of Charlie Kirk sparked a wave of opposition from the right.
And for good reason. The two men and the events following their deaths are only comparable if the author, Thomas Chatterton Williams, was as high as Floyd when analyzing the facts and writing the piece. Williams’ framing is flawed from the start, relying on a false sameness of two men with fundamentally different legacies.
Still, somehow, Williams managed to (and without irony) attempt the impossible by equating Kirk, a devoutly Christian conservative activist who dedicated his life to promoting civil discourse, free speech, and traditional values, with Floyd, a known drug addict with a lengthy criminal record who died while resisting arrest from yet another crime.
“Today, like five years ago, a controversial man has been transformed overnight into a one-dimensional saint, marshaled in a culture war that precludes measured thought. Once again, Americans are being asked to genuflect before an idol,” Williams wrote.
“Today, like five years ago, a controversial man has been transformed overnight into a one-dimensional saint, marshaled in a culture war that precludes measured thought. Once again, Americans are being asked to genuflect before an idol.” pic.twitter.com/CC1d8FG1Ll
— Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill) October 2, 2025
Kirk stood up for the voiceless generation, especially lost young men, who have spent their lives being told their mere presence in society is toxic. But he didn’t forget the young women who were instructed to believe that their ability to bring life into this world was the single most likely cause for the societal burden, rather than a unique blessing. He gathered masses of young people, told them there was still hope to be found in America, and urged them to bring about the change their society desperately needed.
But he didn’t just speak to them or let them talk to him. Kirk showed them by living a life worthy of emulation. He married a woman he loved and was devoted to until his last breath. Their marriage bore two children, who adored him, as is evident by the viral video of his daughter racing into his arms after a media hit at Fox News. (Sign up for Mary Rooke’s weekly newsletter here!)
On the other hand, Floyd’s legacy was defined by a pattern of criminality and self-destructive behavior fueled by drug addiction. Toxicology reports from his death revealed high levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. His decades-long criminal record included arrests and convictions for theft, drug possession, and most notably, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon for allegedly breaking into a woman’s home and pointing a gun at her belly.
Equating Kirk and Floyd requires engaging in a level of moral relativism that distorts reality. “Two men died, and people were upset, so this must all be the same.”
The reactions to Floyd’s death and Kirk’s assassination are not mirror images of illiberalism, as Williams would love to make his readers believe. The left tried to turn a man with a trail of victims in his wake into a symbol of innocence and proof of systemic racial discrimination, which took whitewashing history and facts to levels never seen before.
Nancy Pelosi and Democrats knelt for 8 minutes 46 seconds to honor George Floyd.
They can barely send out a tweet in honor of Iryna Zarutska. pic.twitter.com/74AHdzii7a
— Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) September 10, 2025
The response to Floyd’s death saw massive protests quickly devolve into race riots across the country, causing billions in damage, hundreds of injuries, and over a dozen deaths. Companies, people, and institutions were required to uphold a criminal drug addict as a martyr or face fiery and sometimes deadly violence. Anyone brave enough to criticize the destructive riots was subjected to unjust demonization for calling out the chaos.
In sharp contrast, Kirk left no tangible trail of victims, unlike Floyd. His so-called “flaws” were ideological disagreements, not violence and mayhem. In the wake of Kirk’s murder, teachers, members of the military, and heads of major institutions were openly endorsing political violence. Their targeted firings protect public institutions meant to serve everyone regardless of political ideology. Conservatives didn’t riot or burn cities to the ground when Kirk died. They prayed for his soul and the peace of his family. Some even came back home to the Church, sparking a Christian revival. (ROOKE: The New York Times Embarrasses Itself Trying To Tie White House To Fascism)
You cannot honestly compare just consequences for people in positions of public trust who endorsed political assassinations to entire cities being burned to the ground and stores being looted of anything valuable. And yet that’s exactly what Williams did.
Still, there is something he was correct about. Charlie Kirk is our martyr. He’s the unfortunate recipient of all of the hatred, vitriol, and violence the left has spewed against their ideological opposition. And his death sparked a movement that will not be cowed into silence by pseudo-intellectual hit pieces from rags like the Atlantic.
Follow Mary Rooke on X: @MaryRooke