Even if you accept the narrative that Charlie Kirk was just a commentator with controversial opinions, why all the lionization?
Why does the NYT have "Charlie Kirk 1996-2025" or whatever on their masthead?
No one did this when William F. Buckley died, for example. And he was a civil debater, almost without question.
Is this going to happen when Carville croaks?
I mean, there really isn't a good analog for Kirk on the other side, but in the end, he was two things: a sort of journalist and a political operative. And I don't recall in our history ever lionizing someone like this, regardless of their political bent.
Walter Cronkite maybe?
A reallly invidious comparison might be MLK as a "movement leader." Setting aside moral comparisons between civil rights and MAGA, MLK is associated with the passage of landmark legislation, at least. I guess you could say Kirk is responsible for a landmark political movement, or partially anyway. Just doesn't compare.
And, yes, I know the answer, we all do, but it seems we should actually ask the question(s).