In the past six months, assassinations of two public figures roiled the country. But a comparison of the differing levels of attention these crimes received bluntly teaches that in today’s politics, having a strong social media presence is necessary to wield political power. Republicans have shown that they understand this necessity well. It is a lesson Democrats ignore at their peril.
In September, internet personality and conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot while engaging in debate with students at Utah Valley University about gun violence. In reporting on the event, CNN noted that the “conservative firebrand” had come to the university at the start of a planned ten-college tour “to rally his powers of persuasion and ‘own the libs’ who came forward to challenge his views, all for the enjoyment of an engaged audience and millions of online followers.”
For the next few weeks, Kirk’s name appeared in headline after headline, and he was remembered and evoked on countless occasions. A public memorial for Kirk in Arizona had President Donald Trump and multiple Cabinet members addressing a crowd of thousands. NBC even referred to the memorial as a call for “a revival for religious conservatives.” In response to the tragedy, President Trump announced an investigation into “networks of radical-left maniacs who fund, organize, fuel, and perpetrate political violence,” pinning Kirk’s death on his political opponents. Kirk’s name is now well-known in America, even to people who before his death knew nothing of his online political debates and red-pill content. His death remains a highly discussed topic that has deeply influenced politics, even months after the tragedy.
But for every story in American politics, there is a foil. And in this case, the gap between the public outrage and media coverage of the assassination of this conservative influencer and the attention given to the assassination of a widely forgotten Democratic politician speaks volumes about the necessity of having a social media presence in today's politics.
In June 2025, Vance Boelter broke into the home of Melissa Hortman, a long-time member of the Minnesota House of Representatives who had served as its Speaker from 2017 to January 2025, killing her, her husband, and their dog. Boelter later attempted to murder Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife. These tragedies were plastered all over the national news for a few weeks. After the initial arrest and charges, however, the novelty of the killings wore off. Since mid-July, few headlines about the murders appeared in prominent news outlets, and chatter online about the incident largely ended just as abruptly as it had started. While the circumstances of the assassinations may seem different, they are similar in some ways.
Let’s start with the identities of the killers. As CNN stated, white men with conservative backgrounds shot and killed Kirk and the Hortman family. Furthermore, a few days after the shootings, thousands of people and prominent political figures gathered at remembrance events, paying respects and hearing eulogies detailing the character and achievements of the victims.
Despite these similarities, differences in the aftermaths of the killings are more significant as they spotlight the critical role social media presence plays in politics today. While President Trump capitalized on his friend’s death to further his political agendas and spread misinformation to his large audience, framing Kirk as a conservative Christian martyr and a victim of a “radical-left” conspiracy, Minnesota Governor and former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz largely limited himself to speaking at memorial events and focused his remarks on the victims’ characters and legacies in Minnesota. Among the close family and friends at the Hortmans’ funeral also stood former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, silently paying their respects. The lack of political maneuvering amongst tragedy separates Gov. Walz from President Trump, yet it does not fully explain why the media and the public lost interest in the Hortmans’ case much faster than Kirk’s.
A different and likely more accurate lens to analyze the fundamental difference between the two cases would be through the eyes and ears of the people, which highlights the power of social media presence and its importance in politics and propaganda. First of all, Kirk was assassinated in broad daylight and in public, with many people accidentally capturing close-shot videos of the incident. Kirk’s murder was public and controversial from the start while the Hortmans were hunted and killed in their own home. Naturally, because of this difference, during the initial aftermath of both murders, Kirk’s elicited a more instant, visceral reaction. However, a month-long social media and headline dominance – with no signs of dying down anytime soon – cannot be attributed to that one moment of virality.
Theoretically, Representative Hortman and Senator Hoffman both had more political power than Kirk, considering they signed legislation and influenced state politics considerably. For example, they helped to implement free meals in public schools state-wide, which was a widely discussed and controversial legislative action in the state that vice presidential candidate Walz brought to the national level by speaking about it frequently on the campaign trail. Yet, to the American people, the loss of Kirk has been seen as a more impactful shift in the political landscape.
This difference can best be explained by social media presence. On Instagram, former Speaker Hortman currently has 3,567 followers and 76 posts, most of which are simple, noncontroversial posts on legislation and achievements. Kirk, in contrast, has 13.8 million followers and 3,961 posts, most of which are videos of him debating controversial and oftentimes extreme views on abortion access, gun violence, racial inequality, and queer rights with college students. His videos are purposefully provocative and polarizing. YouTube videos with titles like “The Top 5 CRAZIEST Liberals Charlie Kirk OWNED This Semester” were part of a strategic social media campaign designed to popularize Republican and conservative values with younger generations, a mission aligned with his right-wing non-profit, Turning Point USA.
Kirk’s true political power did not come from the potential legislation he could pass to enact his vision of a conservative youth, but from his social media platform, which reached millions of people, influenced voters, and indirectly affected politics. Today, political power is no longer limited to voting power or the ability of a politician to pass a law. The ability to spread propaganda instantaneously through social media influence is equally, if not more, important.
The death of Kirk represents the death of a well-oiled machine that, according to ABC, increased the nationwide conservative youth vote in the 2024 presidential election. In the modern United States, social media influencers have more political power over the American people than politicians, which President Trump understood when he first partnered with Kirk.
Democratic politicians will soon be left behind if they do not adopt an eye-catching, provocative, and strategic social media campaign that partners with Democratic influencers who speak directly to voters. The numbers do not lie.