Ta few months ago The American right -wing activist Charlie Kirk was killed on September 13, turning to the audience at the University of Uta Valley, for twenty -eight years Caroline Stout felt forced to publish a video on her accounts on social networks. In it, she reflected on her time with Turning Point USA, a non -profit conservative organization of the Kirk campus.
“I firmly felt that I needed to oppose the current administration. And to find out that my own experience will be the best place to start, ”Staut tells me from his house in Amarillo, Texas. Stout began working for a turning point in 2014, at the age of seventeen – two years after the organization was formed – and resigned in May 2017, just a few months after the President of the United States, Donald Trump first took office.
The video received a lot of traction when it was released in July, and then raised and was recirculated after the death of Kirk.
Stout, who works as a lawyer and writer, says that she grew up in a very conservative bubble outside Houston, Texas, and, as a privileged white woman, was never forced to confront her policy or think about herself about what she believed in. “I grew up in a strong community and attended a megashch, where it was a protection about the conservator,” she says. “I believed that you cannot be a Christian, as well as a democrat; It was rooted in me that these two things were incompatible. My community of origin was a merger between the conservative ideology and the ideology of the evangelical faith. I could not doubt one thing without questioning the other. ”
Stout spoke about the walrus about why she joined the “turn” of the United States, what exactly about Kirk made his message so intoxicated for young people, and that made her doubt her political training.
You studied in high school when you joined Turning Point USA. What made you want to take part?
I was connected with my local republican party. At the moment, Charlie was going to raise funds. He held some meeting on the selection of staff for youth interested in politics in Houston. This was the first time I met him when he took his step for the turning point. His abstinence was: “We are concentrated only on limited state and financial liability. That's all. We are not concentrated on social issues, because it shares us. ” It was really digestible to me at that time, because I was really not sure where I stood on some social problems. And it is easy to lag behind financial responsibility and a limited government. So it seemed quite harmless to me.
Seventeen is an age when people are especially impressive.
I remember going to CPAC [the Conservative Political Action Conference] In Washington, the District of Colombia, in 2015. As a teenager, you see presidential candidates and media -children. You make yourself feel chosen and important. I did not want to lose access to this world. Thus, in order to get such a sense of belonging in the organization, all that you had to do, it reflects them and cries your conversations in order to rise and be an activist.
What attracted you to Kirk?
One of the things on which he focused was forced you to feel that you were an exception to other young people. He would say: “Oh, you can see through the fact that the liberals are trying to tell you. They are not going to deceive you. You are smarter than other people of your age. ” Being a young man interested in politics, the eldest daughter, the people's radical, told me that I was smart and another – it was very attractive to me. It was interesting to feel accepted at such a level.
This is exactly what they are doing now for children in high school and colleges, with the exception of a wider scale. They say to these children: “You do not wash the brains of liberal elites. You can see through what they are trying to inspire you. ” Nevertheless, they convey to you a perfectly packed political ideology that you do not need to develop. This is quite insidious.
How much attractiveness of Kirk has come from his ability to make conservatism feel like a brand for young people?
The turning point was good for conservatism to feel relevant. They would say: “This is not the conservatism of Bill O'rali. This is a new movement. ” They made them that you belonged to a movement with a brand’s close -knit. It was honed. It was 2016 when social networks were very supervised, so such a branding was especially attractive to people of my age.
In your video, you say that much of what you have done for a turning point is to write articles specially designed to scare people, gain traffic and actually simply strengthen the intensity of the political moment. Have you ever written what you knew what was misleading or exaggerated?
I do not think I knew it at that time. It was when I thought Fox News was biblical truth. We believed that we fought to the left and told the truth.
I began to notice this in the stories that I wrote, most of them focused on the so -called liberal bias in the campus. I would publish articles about higher education, which “impressed” youth, but I think that I think: “It seems reasonable – it does not matter much to conduct LGBT -event.” Then another story would have met with my table about the “crazy things” that the left -wing ones made, and I wonder: “Why are we focusing on this? Why are we trying to expose something, which really does not seem big? ” Most of the news in the campus was exaggerated, creating ordinary events as something vile.
Of course, in a retrospect, it was an attempt to demonize higher education and perpetuate anti -intellectualism.
What do you think, what responsibility Kirk carries the climate of fear and indignation that changed American politics?
When the magician began to take possession, Kirk really leaned toward his rise. He was very ambitious, and therefore during the first administration of Trump there was a serious shift during his rhetoric. In the beginning, he even gave an interview, emphasizing the importance of viewing politics through a secular lens. But in recent years, his message has become much more consistent with Christian nationalism. This evolution carefully monitors the wider growth of Christian nationalism in politics and with the magician. I would not blame him for him, but the arms of nationalist and fascist rhetoric-anti-nitia, xenophobia and Christian nationalism are what he is responsible for.
Then he personally was the radicalization of people, or did he just direct the currents that were already there?
Yes, and yes. I think that he saw a chance to raise bets and raise tension – because the admiration of people is excited – this is what he did really well. Excitement can also come from anger and fear, and he recognized it. He took this opportunity, and she coincided with a wider political landscape of that time.
You left the turning point in May 2017. What was the crack in the facade – there was one event that made you doubt everything?
It was not a specific moment. This happened over time, when I continued to write articles and see the bias in them – Bias, I did not see the goal. I began to doubt why they used this language and why they created the situation in a certain way. The agenda in conservative media has become more difficult to ignore. It was then that skepticism began to penetrate. And then there was a rhetoric that came with the growth of Trump. I could not reconcile this with my sympathy for others. I could not reconcile this with my worldview and my desire to treat people well. It was a slow process.
As soon as Trump took office in 2017, I no longer worked as an editor at full rate – I retreated to a part -time job. I concentrated more on lighter objects, such as pop culture and lists. I was just quite exhausted. And then after that, the turning point restructured and got rid of the letter program, so I took advantage of this as an opportunity to be like “I am absent” without frank care, and this should be a big business.
After you left the organization, have you noticed big changes in its rhetoric over time?
Absolutely. After I left for a turning point, I refrained for some time from using a large amount of political content. But as soon as I started connecting and saw the aspect of Christian nationalism in the group, I began to grow, as well as anti-immigrants, anti-Trans, anti-LGBTritory, I would say: “How is this the same person? How is this the same person who said that we are concentrated only on limited state and financial liability? ” It was really difficult to reconcile this change.
You say that initially Kirk did not want the organization to concentrate on social problems. But in recent years, he talked a lot about social problems.
Many problems related to the turning point had social consequences. It was different to pretend to be a convenient way to hide the real bets of a conservative policy. The refrain was: “Oh no, we are not talking about social problems, it's all intellectually.” But when you oppose universal medical care or promote the “Choice of the School”, or protect freedom of speech only when it benefits conservative groups in campus, all these are positions that have social consequences.
As soon as he created the organization, and it became quite noticeable, there was much more flexibility and readiness to talk about social problems openly, because now it was supported by the growing base of supporters.
You say that your feelings for his death are complex. How so?
I do not feel complicated about the indulgence of political violence. I am not idle what happened to him – I strongly condemn this. Complex feelings are much more personal in the sense that I almost seemed to mourn for a person whom I knew a long time ago. As soon as he took this deep immersion in the extreme right and in the magician and became a convinced panmer, I upset the principled and kind person on whom I worked.
You also say that you will not be what you are today, if not for Charlie Kirk.
I think about the possibilities that I had with a turning point. The people I met, the friends I started, learned to communicate at a young age. To be part of the rotary moment gave me a sense of goal. This gave me a voice, while I used to feel that I was just another child. Whether right or wrong, it was a platform where young people still found out their views. This gave me confidence, and this contributed to the interests of politics and politics. This inspired me to what I wanted.
If not for the turning point, I do not think that I will do what I am today. Maybe I would find my way here in another ability, but I left the turning point, a more independent person than I when I started.
Wendy Kaur-journalist from Toronto, whose work was published Globe and mail, Toronto starIN Elle US, Elle Canada and others.
