Staff Reports
A recent episode of the I’ve Had It podcast saw host Jennifer Welch play a video of a protester celebrating the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, then issue a blunt warning to Democratic leaders that they should “jump on board” with that sentiment or be “come after you in the same way that we come after MAGA.” The segment has set off fresh debate about whether mainstream Democrats are tolerating or even encouraging extreme rhetoric from the fringes of their party. Many are rightly asking whether normalizing talk of political violence was ever acceptable, let alone broadcast with a laugh track.
The clip Welch played featured on-the-street footage filmed by conservative commentator Kaitlin Bennett at a No Kings march, where one woman was recorded saying she was “glad” Charlie Kirk was not present, and another seemed to agree that his absence was cause for celebration. Those raw, unsettling moments were then amplified by Welch’s commentary, which framed the reaction as a necessary and rising current within the Democratic coalition. Watching a left-wing host praise or egg on celebratory language about murder is the kind of spectacle that should alarm anyone who cares about civil society.
The backdrop to this controversy remains the national trauma of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, which occurred on September 10, 2025, at an outdoor Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University. The killing shocked the country and sparked a months-long debate over political violence, campus safety, and the role of hostile rhetoric in stoking real-world harm. Law enforcement investigations and court proceedings have followed, and the killing has become a political Rorschach test for how both sides discuss extremism and responsibility.
Conservative commentators and outlets have seized on Welch’s comments as further proof of a permissive culture on the left toward political violence, arguing that media and party leaders have been too slow to condemn extremist talk from their own fringes. That reaction is predictable, and it is understandable — when voices on the left downplay or mock the death of a political opponent, it feeds a narrative of double standards in national discourse. Calls for accountability are not partisan grandstanding; they are a necessary response to keep the public sphere from sliding toward intimidation and revenge.
Welch’s explicit urging that the Democratic establishment “get on board” or be targeted itself points to a dangerous impulse to police internal dissent through threats rather than debate. Whether she intended to menace party leaders or simply to needle them rhetorically, the effect is the same: it normalizes coercion over persuasion and mob pressure over democratic deliberation. If the mainstream of either party tolerates leaders who whisper consent to violence, we will have lost more than an election cycle — we will have lost a measure of civic decency.
The country needs clarity and consequence: clear public denouncements of political violence, consistent enforcement of the law, and leaders who refuse to weaponize rhetoric for short-term gain. Prosecutors have brought serious charges in the Charlie Kirk case, underscoring that violence must be met with the full weight of justice rather than partisan excuses. Americans of every political persuasion should insist on stronger norms from commentators and politicians alike — because a free and civil society cannot survive if cheers for murder become acceptable rhetoric.
