By Christian Cullen, Staff Writer
The political atmosphere lately is full of heated rhetoric and the violent consequences that result from it. The assassination attempts on Donald Trump have brought discussions of how we speak about the former president to the forefront. Most of the criticism about political rhetoric, specifically from the Right, has been aimed at the Democrats’ messaging about Trump, such as calling him a “danger to democracy.”
There has been a rush to bring down the tone of political rhetoric. The recent assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump are allowing the Right to co-opt stochastic terrorism — a form of political violence in which vague and coded language is used to incite violence against a group or individual — as an issue confined to the Left. Meanwhile, it is the Right that has made use of heated rhetoric to potentially horrific ends.
However, this is a basic take on a situation that requires nuance. Two things can exist as true at once. Political violence in any form is bad. Donald Trump, regardless of prior events, can still be seen as a danger to America.
This outcry feels somewhat cheap as well because, for years, the Right have been the ones increasing political violence. By starting with some quotes from Trump and then analyzing recent events and controversies from the Right, we can see the uptick in charged rhetoric. Here are three quick examples of things Donald Trump has said about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden that I was able to find in 10 minutes:
- Trump said, “We have a nation that is dying” during the debate against Kamala Harris on Sept. 10, 2024.
- Trump said, “The fact is I am not a threat to democracy: they are,” in a campaign rally on Sept. 18, 2024.
- Trump said, “This man is a criminal. This man – you’re lucky. You’re lucky.” while debating against Joe Biden on Jun. 28, 2024.
Trump has also ratcheted up his rhetoric. Can we bring down the tone? Sure, it would likely not hurt, but it needs to extend to both sides. But bringing down “the tone” should not compromise the facts of the situation, which is that Trump is a threat to democracy.
Trump’s false claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio eating pets have led to violence and hate crimes in the area.
At this point, the story of Springfield, Ohio, and the false narrative around Haitian immigrants — who are here legally — has etched itself into the national consciousness. The story was clearly false, and yet leaders on the Right continued to push it to drum up voter base support. A similar event happened in 2022 when false and embellished narratives were released about the Boston Children’s Hospital’s gender-affirming care. This situation escalated with social media attention, leading to multiple bomb threats against the hospital.
There are many similar examples. If you still doubt me, just go onto the internet and look at what people are saying about immigrants and LGBTQ+ individuals, especially about transgender individuals. Social media has become widely influential in goading people into irrational acts of violence against other groups. The issue is not calling Donald Trump a danger to democracy; it is when people outright lie to fan the flames of fear and anger to assert their dominant ideology (looking at you, JD Vance). Too often, politicians will fall into the trap of marginalizing an out-group in a vain effort to grasp power.
The Right is correct that we need to fix our political language, just not in the way they mean. We must be more proactive in calling out this language for what it is, and that is bigoted and othering in nature. If not, we may see this damaging rhetoric lead to very dangerous real-world outcomes, as the residents of Springfield have unfortunately seen since the debate on Sept. 10, with multiple bomb threats and school cancellations.
When the current conversation about our rhetoric is focused on the Democrats’ wording around Trump, it serves two purposes. Firstly, it allows the truly dangerous language to slide underneath the public’s gaze. We are entirely focused on the wrong people, the wrong language and the wrong outcomes when we talk about Donald Trump being referred to as a fascist.
Secondly, this misplaced approach allows Trump to claim that some very valid statements are being overblown. He has talked about jailing political opponents, and much of his former White House was involved with Project 2025, regardless of Trump trying to separate himself from it. We are in a precarious position. When it comes to the far Right, we should not be afraid to call out the ideologies for what they are: dangerous.