Charlie Kirk Debates Criminal Justice Reform, Electoral College, and Kanye West at Politicon Panel

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Charlie Kirk on Kanye West's Presidential Run and How It Could Help Donald Trump Win in 2020

Charlie Kirk on Kanye West's Presidential Run and How It Could Help Donald Trump Win in 2020

15:47

Charlie Kirk Explains How Turning Point USA Is Fighting the Cultural Marxist Takeover of College Campuses Across America

Charlie Kirk Explains How Turning Point USA Is Fighting the Cultural Marxist Takeover of College Campuses Across America

50:59

Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk Debate Trump's Conservative Legacy and the Bernie Sanders Threat

Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk Debate Trump's Conservative Legacy and the Bernie Sanders Threat

58:54

Charlie Kirk Debates Criminal Justice Reform, Electoral College, and Kanye West at Politicon Panel

Charlie Kirk joins a diverse panel at Politicon including Kyle Kulinski, Bakari Sellers, Lauren Chen, and Michael Knowles to debate some of America's most divisive issues. The conversation tackles criminal justice reform, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the controversial Kanye West White House visit. Kirk defends the Electoral College, challenges the left on consistency regarding life issues, and sparks heated exchanges about race, representation, and what it means to bridge political divides. The panel demonstrates both the potential for cross-partisan agreement on issues like ending warrantless surveillance and the deep fault lines that remain on fundamental questions of justice and equality.

Categories: Interviews
October 24, 2018

A Heated Conversation on Bridging America's Divide

At Politicon, Charlie Kirk joined a politically diverse panel to tackle one of the most pressing questions facing America: how do we get along in an era of extreme polarization? Alongside Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, former South Carolina State Representative Bakari Sellers, Lauren Chen of Roaming Millennial, and Michael Knowles of The DailyWire+, Kirk engaged in a spirited discussion that revealed both surprising areas of agreement and deep ideological divides.

The moderator framed the conversation by noting that partisan polarization in Congress has reached levels not seen since the end of Reconstruction. The panel's mission was to explore how new media voices can create more constructive political dialogue when the incentives seem to push toward inflammatory rhetoric and tribal politics.

Finding Common Ground on Government Overreach

The conversation began with an unexpected moment of agreement. When Kirk spoke about the corrupting influence of power concentrated in Washington DC, Kyle Kulinski immediately found areas of alignment. Kulinski pointed out that when it comes to warrantless NSA spying, the drug war, and anti-war positions, the populist left and libertarian right can work together. Kirk agreed enthusiastically on these civil libertarian issues.

Both Kirk and Kulinski criticized the massive government spending on foreign wars, with Kirk noting that George W. Bush was "a big spending liberal that betrayed all of our principles." Kulinski called Bush "a war monger and a neoconservative and one of the worst presidents our country's ever seen." This bipartisan criticism of neoconservative policies demonstrated potential for cross-ideological coalition building.

The Kanye West Controversy Erupts

The panel took a contentious turn when Kirk confronted Bakari Sellers about comments Sellers made on CNN regarding Kanye West's visit to the Oval Office. Kirk accused Sellers of saying "this is what happens when black people don't read," which Sellers clarified was actually "this is what happens when Negroes don't read"—a direct quote about Kanye West specifically, referencing a Chris Rock bit about anti-intellectualism.

Sellers defended his position, stating that Kanye West is "a quoted non-reader" and arguing that if the administration wants to discuss criminal justice reform seriously, they should consult experts like Michelle Alexander rather than celebrities. Sellers emphasized: "I stand on the shoulders of Walter Scott, of Trayvon Martin, of Keith Lamont Scott, of Sandra Bland—the list goes on and on. So it's cool if you want to be indignant, but I stand on that today and I'll stand on it tomorrow."

Kirk pushed back, defending Kanye as "a seven-time Grammy winner, multi-billionaire, courageous man" and arguing that Kanye never claimed to speak for all black people. The exchange highlighted fundamental disagreements about representation, expertise, and the role of celebrity in political discourse.

Criminal Justice Reform: Where Left and Right Might Meet

The discussion of criminal justice reform revealed both potential for agreement and significant obstacles. Bakari Sellers outlined what meaningful reform would look like: banning for-profit prisons, ending marijuana prohibition, and implementing rehab and social programs to reduce recidivism. He expressed frustration that symbolic gestures like celebrity White House visits or single acts of clemency don't constitute systemic reform.

Lauren Chen pointed out that criminal justice reform represents an interesting area of left-right alignment, citing the Koch brothers, Rand Paul, and Grover Norquist's involvement in efforts to reduce prison populations and mandatory minimum sentences. However, Michael Knowles took a different position, arguing that America should put more criminals in prison, not fewer, citing the correlation between incarceration rates and falling crime rates.

Kirk offered a conservative case against the death penalty that surprised some panelists. He argued that the number of wrongful executions, the higher cost compared to life imprisonment due to appeals, and consistency on pro-life principles all support abolishing capital punishment. "If I'm against government power domestically for the rights of American citizens," Kirk explained, "then I think that we should be consistent in protecting the life of the unborn even the life of the people that have done horrendously heinous crimes."

The Saudi Arabia Question

When Kyle Kulinski challenged Michael Knowles on law and order by raising the US-Saudi alliance and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the conversation became particularly heated. Knowles argued that Khashoggi was "a radical Islamist" whose main criticism of Saudi Arabia was that it was "too pro-Israel," suggesting this made the focus on his death a distraction.

Charlie Kirk broke with Knowles on this issue, stating: "Saudi Arabia is one of the great enemies of the west and of America. I'm sick and tired of appeasing them." Kirk noted that 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, that the country funds madrasahs that become hotbeds of radical Islam, and that Saudi Arabia has never paid a price for its role in terrorism. This represented one of the few areas where Kirk and the left-wing panelists found complete agreement.

Defending the Electoral College

When an audience member challenged the panel about structural issues in American democracy—noting that Democratic senators represent 35 million more Americans but are in the minority, and that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election—Kirk mounted a vigorous defense of the Electoral College.

Kirk emphasized that America is "a constitutional republic that uses a democratic process," not a pure democracy. He argued that the Electoral College prevents the tyranny of the majority and ensures that candidates must appeal to middle America rather than just concentrating on major urban centers. "You'll see candidates do nothing but go from cities like Miami to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and concentrate on heavily urban issues and forget middle of America," Kirk warned.

Kyle Kulinski strongly disagreed, calling arguments against abolishing the Electoral College "mental gymnastics" and stating it's "honestly laughable" to argue that people who got fewer votes should be in power. Bakari Sellers offered a more pragmatic defense of the Electoral College from his experience in South Carolina, noting that candidates would never campaign in smaller states without it.

Affirmative Action and Asian American Students

The panel addressed affirmative action when an audience member asked about racial preferences in hiring. Bakari Sellers began by noting that "the number one group of individuals that benefit from affirmative action in this country are actually white women," a fact often overlooked in debates about the policy.

Charlie Kirk pivoted the discussion to discrimination against Asian American students, arguing that Ivy League schools use different grading scales for different races, making it harder for Asian Americans to gain admission despite higher test scores and graduation rates. "That is pure and simple racism," Kirk stated, calling affirmative action "a punishment against an entire portion of the American population."

Lauren Chen suggested addressing the root causes of underrepresentation by focusing on improving public schools in underserved communities, graduation rates, and treatment programs rather than relying on affirmative action as a remedy. Sellers agreed with this "holistic approach," noting that affirmative action is "just one sliver of a larger" solution to systemic inequality.

The Incentives of New Media

Throughout the discussion, panelists reflected on the challenges of political discourse in the new media environment. Lauren Chen admitted that inflammatory content gets far more views than substantive policy analysis: "We can spend weeks researching a video about something like political philosophy or the public school system and it'll get a fraction of the views that some 'rekt feminists' ownage video" would receive.

Michael Knowles offered a contrarian view, saying "I love the polarization, I love the partisanship." He argued that clear distinctions between parties give voters meaningful choices rather than the indistinguishable parties of the 1930s and 1940s. "I want a choice not an echo," Knowles declared, quoting the conservative movement's founding principle.

The moderator pushed back on this zero-sum framing, arguing that democracy requires more than just one side winning at the expense of the other. The exchange highlighted ongoing tension between principled disagreement and destructive tribalism in American political discourse.

Moving Forward

The panel concluded with moderator Steven noting George Washington's farewell address warning that extreme partisanship makes countries vulnerable to foreign corruption and authoritarian tendencies. He expressed optimism that the Millennial generation tends to be more issue-focused than party-focused, which could lead to more productive political dialogue.

Despite heated moments, the panel demonstrated that substantive cross-ideological conversation remains possible. Areas of surprising agreement emerged on civil liberties, foreign policy, and the need for electoral reform. Yet fundamental disagreements on issues like abortion, affirmative action, and the role of government remain deep fault lines in American politics.

As Kyle Kulinski summarized: "When we do agree, we do get along and we can work together on those issues. But where we don't agree, let's argue, let's debate, let's have that disagreement. That's what democracy is."

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!