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
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)