When I saw a headline that read Turning Point USA has a Erika Kirk problem I was more than intrigued. Charlie Kirk became a political force by organizing and mobilizing Gen Z men. Don’t kid yourself. He built Turning Point USA into a real political force that could and did deliver crucial votes to Trump and as far as many of us believe his real goal of ensuring white MEN controlled this country. Forever. When he was murdered his widow Erika wanted to assume control and it seems not much discussion went into whether she’d be the best person to carry the mission forward. In fact, it seems there were hopes that Erika could do with (white) Gen Z Women what Charlie did with younger men. Now it seems questions they should have asked before are quietly being raised.
That’s the gist of the article from HuffPost who’s headline I noted in my opening sentence. It’s not a mere OpEd. There are some compelling stats in it and it’s worth your time. HuffPost doesn’t get into some of the wild speculation about Erika Kirk and VP Vance (you’ve no doubt seen stuff about all not being well with him and Usha) and she has after all just announced that Turning Point was already officially endorsing Vance for 2028. Somehow I don’t think Trump’s going to like that. Having a group that major already ‘moving on’ from him is going to sting, especially with him teasing somehow running himself. Yes, he’ll be lucky to even live that long but I’m part of the group that thinks his raising the possibility is just so he can rake in more donations. But I digress.
I have several takeaways from the linked article. It’s important to remember a few things about Erika Kirk and what she said about women, marriage, women’s roles (don’t bother with a career – find a husband and support HIS efforts to be successful), and so on. Now, that will seem ok to the men who were enthralled by Charlie. As Erika stands alone in the spotlight however that could well change. Yes, she was five years OLDER than Charlie which can promote some WTF? thinking from the guys. She also had a career before becoming a wife and has continued, especially as evidenced by grabbing hold of the reins of TPUSA to keep having one.
That kind of hypocrisy is starting to get a bit of attention. Look, from the time she got herself appointed Charlie’s successor I thought something along the lines of ‘Yeah, they didn’t want to upset the grieving widow of their idol by shoving her aside but after a while having a WOMAN as their leader will start to grate on them.’ I believe ‘hypocrisy’ will enter the guy’s minds with increasing frequency. In addition to that, it seems Gen Z WOMEN have their doubts about Erika too and again hypocrisy, her telling THEM how to live their lives when she did the very things she criticizes “liberal women” over doesn’t sit well.
From where I sit after Charlie was buried someone planted the idea that Erika could mobilize Gen Z conservative women the way Charlie did with the guys. Perhaps that they thought would be enough to get the guys to overlook their ‘concerns’ with having a WOMAN in charge of their movement. The initial headlines from new outlets that Erika could ‘turn Turning Point into a conduit to reach Gen Z women’ was a case of getting out over the skis. Even Kirk knows this is festering and both the organization and her don’t respond to requests to talk about it. However others are weighing in:
The reality, experts in the young voting bloc say, is that young women really aren’t buying the narrative that Erika Kirk has been peddling: that they’d be happier leaving their careers behind, getting married young, having children and “submitting”to their husbands.
“I certainly think that Erica Kirk could be a strong leader, bringing in more young women than, perhaps, have been a part of the Turning Point movement to date, but I don’t suspect we’re going to see a massive shift right amongst young women anytime soon,” said Rachel Janfaza, founder of the Gen Z research and strategy firm The Up and Up.
Look I’m an old (as in senior citizen) white guy who even back before being forced into early retirement on disability didn’t have much of a social life. Yes, I interacted with younger people at work effectively to serve our clients but I’ve never been up to date on ‘what’s happening.’ I do know that just as my generation faced different circumstances than prior ones, the same remains true of every generation since. I’ll be the first to admit that even when I was working and engaged daily with younger co-workers I was pretty clueless. I didn’t understand young men all that well. And having returned to social services later in life I worked mostly with women. They talked pretty openly amongst themselves at the office like I wasn’t even there and boy did I hear some stuff guys don’t usually hear.
However while I think I came to a partial understanding of women of my own generation (emphasis on PARTIAL) like most guys I didn’t really understand them as well as they understood men. For under 30 women? Clueless doesn’t cover it. However as the linked article says if the guys in Turning Point were thinking Erika would bridge the gap they don’t understand women any better than I have despite my efforts. If the women of their generation don’t fully buy in to what Charlie sold the guys on then those guys will regret elevating Erika to her current position. And that’s where according to the linked article it gets interesting:
The reality, experts in the young voting bloc say, is that young women really aren’t buying the narrative that Erika Kirk has been peddling: that they’d be happier leaving their careers behind, getting married young, having children and “submitting”to their husbands.
“I certainly think that Erica Kirk could be a strong leader, bringing in more young women than, perhaps, have been a part of the Turning Point movement to date, but I don’t suspect we’re going to see a massive shift right amongst young women anytime soon,” said Rachel Janfaza, founder of the Gen Z research and strategy firm The Up and Up.
That sentence about women not buying what Erika Kirk is selling jumped out at me as much as HuffPost’s headline did. There’s plenty more in the article including some interesting stats but I’m thinking HuffPost’s headline could well turn out to be prescient. TPUSA has itself and Erika Kirk problem. In addition to other significant infighting that started even before Charlie was murdered. Keep an eye on this because a fractured Turning Point won’t be able to deliver the amount of votes Trump and the GOP are counting on.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula
Yeah, I’m not seeing too many of “Charlie’s Devotees” sticking with the group if “a woman” (even St Charlie’s widow) makes a serious play for control of the group. It’s NEVER worked that way for women. Pretty much EVERY conservative “women’s organization” (from the “One Million Moms” to “Concerned Women for America” to Phyllis Schlafly’s “Eagle Forum”) has ALWAYS put a MAN in charge of the group’s operations (Schlafly remained the official CEO of the Eagle Forum but most of the day-to-day work was overseen by men because women were only supposed to, well, to use an old term from the gay community, be “beards” to hide who really ran the groups).
The whole “alpha male” movement (filled with its own batch of grifters and connivers) insist that women can’t be trusted and there’s a LOT of overlap between them and the Turning Point men. And it will REALLY be a tough sale to these guys who bought into the notion that women are wholly incapable of being President but, somehow, they can oversee a “conservative” movement which bases its entire premise on the concept that MEN LEAD AND WOMEN SUBMIT.