Since the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, I have read and heard many descriptions of his character: gracious, faithful and principled. Coincidentally, these are many of the same sentiments shared about William F. Buckley Jr. ’50, perhaps Yale’s greatest conservative intellectual, at the United States Postal Service’s stamp unveiling ceremony in his honor earlier this week. 

The stylistic divide between Buckley and Kirk shows how American conservatism has moved from elite, print-era persuasion to the fast, populist spectacle of the social media age.

Buckley, much like Kirk, was a bastion of campus right-wing thought. He debated frequently at the Yale Political Union, and was known as a talented orator. His right-wing intellectual relevance existed far beyond campus; Buckley was known across the country as a thinker, writer and speaker as only an undergrad. A 2008 obituary in the News remarked that “his editorials were read across the nation and had a significant impact on American political debate.”

“On campus, Buckley’s writings were anticipated by students — but even more so by faculty,” the obituary continued.

Kirk, likewise, became a political star on college campuses. At 18, he met Tea Party activist Bill Montgomery, and together they founded Turning Point USA soon after Kirk finished high school. Though Kirk briefly attended Harper College in Illinois, he dropped out to pursue political activism. By age 21, Kirk had written for the Washington Post and Breitbart, was frequently featured on Fox News and CNBC, had built a network of thousands of campus conservatives and had raised millions of dollars.

Though Kirk didn’t graduate from university himself, the bread and butter of Turning Point USA is its thousands of campus chapters. Like Buckley, Kirk became known for open debates and impressive orations on college campuses around the country. With modern technology, Kirk’s impressive and sometimes controversial answers were disseminated to millions of Americans, galvanizing a generation of conservative youth. 

On the left, Kirk and Buckley were both disliked. The New York Times described Kirk as a “new breed of political agitator” and the Guardian called him the new “kingmaker within the national Republican orbit.” Buckley was famously called a “crypto-Nazi” by Gore Vidal, and was known to detractors as a “right-wing firebrand” with “little respect for established authority.”

At the Buckley Stamp unveiling this week, the speakers emphasized one thing about Buckley far beyond his intellectual prowess: his goodness. He was cordial with those who vehemently disagreed with him. He debated graciously and strongly, finishing with a smile and handshake for his opponent. Watch any firing line debate and you will see — William F. Buckley debated with purpose and grace. 

Though Buckley would probably have disliked Kirk’s populist strand of conservatism, a commitment to gracious debate is shared. Kirk profilist Adam Rubenstein described this commitment: “We could disagree about anything—and we did—but he would, without fail, engage civilly and explain his point of view. He did not do this, as many do, to make himself feel smart. He did it so he could share the other side of something he cared about. And he cared deeply.” 

The videos from campuses are quite clear. Kirk intentionally put himself in hostile situations, and did not insult and did not shout down. He did so for varying reasons — spreading his political messaging, internet fame, and I’m sure some personal gain — yet ultimately on campuses Kirk advocated for what he believed was the truth. That is noble. 

Buckley’s and Kirk’s achievements show that influence in American right wing thought is measured not only by electoral victories but by the ability to turn arguments into power. Buckley’s debates and writings helped knit together a modern conservative coalition and gave intellectual shape to Reagan-era Republicanism. Kirk, operating in a different media landscape, mobilized a grassroots network that shifted the party’s center of gravity toward populism and digital activism. Each demonstrated that charisma can redirect the Republican Party’s course as decisively as any policy platform.

William F. Buckley helped conservatism retake the Republican party, helping to create the conditions for Reagan’s 1980 victory. Kirk helped populists retake today’s republican party, creating the conditions for our political moment. Like Buckley, Kirk entered the hall of Republicans who have profoundly changed America. We will see how his legacy endures.

JOSHUA DANZIGER is a sophomore in Trumbull College studying History and Economics. His monthly column “Power” explores geography, demography and the state. He can be reached at joshua.danziger@yale.edu.