Europe is no stranger to political violence like the recent attempt on former US president Donald Trump’s life at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. More than 50 candidates and activists were physically assaulted during France’s recent parliamentary election — a painful reminder of a not-so-distant past when violence was part of the language of political discourse in several European nations.
However, political violence in the US is different, because it occurs in a society where civilians own more than 300 million firearms and mass shootings are tragically frequent. As ugly as it might sound, the attempt to assassinate Trump is somewhat normal, in the sense that it is consistent with a widespread pattern of recourse to brute force in US life.
Political violence in the US takes on ever-changing forms, but a constant feature is the vicious rhetorical battle that follows every incident. Each side passionately blames the other for inciting the shooter with inflammatory statements, suggesting that the victim’s political opponents bear moral responsibility for the violence.
Illustration: Mountain People
This is a rare area of bipartisan consensus among US politicians — the victim’s political party determines the culprit, but the narrative’s structure is always the same. The time frame for dispassionately condemning violence shortens with each episode.
The attempt on Trump’s life, which resulted in the death of one rally attendee and the 20-year-old shooter, had two immediate effects.
First, it revitalized the martyrdom narrative of Trump’s “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” campaign, and followers instantly began producing merchandise glorifying the surviving hero, who declared he would remain “defiant in the face of wickedness.”
Trump’s prophetic tone in crediting God for “preventing the unthinkable from happening” fits perfectly with the MAGA narrative of a divinely appointed messenger who the world wants to kill.
The second, equally predictable effect is the accusation that Democrats are to blame for the attack. US Senator J.D. Vance, Trump’s vice presidential pick, said that the incident was a direct consequence of US President Joe Biden’s campaign portraying Trump as a threat to democracy, thus legitimizing attempts to remove him by force.
“That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination,” Vance said.
Similarly, US Representative Mike Collins said that the District Attorney’s Office in Butler County, Pennsylvania, “should immediately file charges against Joseph R. Biden for inciting an assassination.”
Even US Representative Steve Scalise, a victim of a 2017 attack by a left-wing extremist that the FBI classified as domestic terrorism, pointed to the Democrats’ “incendiary rhetoric.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign circulated clips of Democratic US Representative Dan Goldman saying on live television that Trump needs to be “eliminated,” a statement echoed by former US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi, while his operatives highlighted a now-ominous-sounding quote from a frustrated Biden, who, after his recent disastrous debate performance, said: “We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”
Democrats and their supporters have been hastily condemning the incident, while reminding everyone that Trump openly incited a mob to storm the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — the most horrific episode of political violence in recent US history — with the aim of overturning his loss in the 2020 election.
This rhetorical skirmish is likely to solidify Trump’s lead over Biden in the polls, but the long-term implications are more devastating — a national conversation fueled by hatred, victimhood and resentment.
In 2011, after the assassination attempt on US Representative Gabby Giffords in Arizona, a Democratic-leaning news outlet popularized the term “stochastic terrorism,” which refers to political violence by lone actors motivated by a radicalizing atmosphere. The stochastic terrorist was supposedly Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and then-Tea Party leader, who had circulated a map marking congressional districts to be targeted in the next elections, including Giffords’ district, with what looked like crosshairs.
It later emerged that Giffords’ attacker was a deeply disturbed individual with no knowledge of Palin’s map, rallies or political debate. Despite this, and despite the lack of evidence of a causal link between political rhetoric and such attacks, the term resurfaces after every attack and has entered specialized literature as if it described a valid concept.
Through shared tactics of manipulation, instrumentalization and self-victimization, Democrats and Republicans have become trapped in a mire of circular reasoning that is as perverse as it is dangerous.
Alleging a connection between violence and political rhetoric becomes a rhetorical weapon itself, fueling the extreme polarization that makes political violence more likely.
Mattia Ferraresi is managing editor of Italian newspaper Domani and a 2019 Harvard Nieman fellow. He is the author of several books, including the first volume on former US president Donald Trump to be published in Italy, and the forthcoming I Demoni Della Mente (The Demons of the Mind).
Copyright: Project Syndicate
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
Next week, the nation is to celebrate the Lunar New Year break. Unfortunately, cold winds are a-blowing, literally and figuratively. The Central Weather Administration has warned of an approaching cold air mass, while obstinate winds of chaos eddy around the Legislative Yuan. English theologian Thomas Fuller optimistically pointed out in 1650 that “it’s always darkest before the dawn.” We could paraphrase by saying the coldest days are just before the renewed hope of spring. However, one must temper any optimism about the damage being done in the legislature by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), under
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
US President Donald Trump on Monday gave his inauguration speech. Although mainly directed at US citizens, his words were subject to global scrutiny by leaders and others wanting to understand more about his intentions for his second term. The US has been Taiwan’s strongest ally since the end of World War II and Trump’s first term brought many welcome advances in Taiwan-US ties. Still, many Taiwanese are concerned about what Trump’s second term will mean for the nation, especially after comments he made concerning Taiwan’s national defense and semiconductor industry. During Monday’s address, Trump said that the US “will once again consider
RSS