Dangerous Rhetoric Inspired Assassination Attempt, Continues afterward

A field director for Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) was fired over the weekend for a social media post endorsing future attempts on Donald Trump’s life, after he survived an assassination attempt at a Saturday rally in Pennsylvania. The incident offers a troubling glimpse on the health of American civil society and the prognosis for further political violence.

“I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time oops that wasn’t me saying that,” Jacqueline Marshaw wrote ungrammatically. For those who might be confused, hinting at future assassination attempts and instructing the would-be shooters to not miss is condoning violence, and following it with the word “oops” does not negate the statement. After the Mississippi GOP demanded her ouster, Thompson’s office announced her termination on Sunday.

Marshaw is not the only one to publicly post horrific opinions, either wishing for the death of Donald Trump or claiming he deserved it:

• Pennsylvania firefighter Tony Bendele tweeted in response, “too bad it [the bullet] didn’t hit him [Trump] square.” Bendele has since resigned from his firehouse. In a post announcing his resignation, he appeared to suggest his resignation was due to personal threats made against him and his family, although it’s not clear how his resignation would resolve those threats. If threats have been made against him, he should submit those to law enforcement authorities.
• Uber senior program manager Eric Cartrite posted, “It’s a shame they missed… better luck next time!!! If we are lucky the next guy is a better shot!” Since the post, Cartrite’s Instagram account appears to have been deleted.
• Colorado Rep. Steven Woodrow (D) posted on X/Twitter, “The last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil, but here we are.” Shortly afterward, Woodrow deleted his X/Twitter account.
• The Atlantic columnist David Frum insinuated that the attempted assassination serves the former president right. As of this writing, that article is still live.

There are more instances, but these are a sampling that rose to the surface early Monday.

Americans usually like to think about political violence as something on the fringes of society, something only contemplated by unbalanced loners like the perpetrator of Saturday’s attack, something that enjoys an icy reception and swift kick out the door whenever the possibility is raised in broader society. But for a congressional staffer, a first responder, a corporate manager, a state representative, and a media prognosticator to share this view — well, that’s something quite different.

The natural response to news that someone has been physically attacked is sympathy for that person. But that natural response can be overridden by intense hatred — the type of hatred that could contemplate such an attack in the first place. For hatred to override the natural response of so many widely dispersed people, intense, political hatred must lurk within the hearts of many, many American hearts.

What could provoke such intense hatred for Donald Trump? A coordinated campaign to compare him to one of the greatest villains of the last century. Only hours after the man was shot at a political rally, Frum’s article called Trump the “Would-Be Dictator” of a “fascist movement.” In December, The Washington Post ran an opinion column bearing the headline, “Yes, it’s okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don’t let me stop you.” The media commentariat have been spinning that absurd narrative since the 2016 election.

Since the Saturday shooting, President Biden has admirably condemned all political violence and declared that we Americans settle our disagreements at the ballot box (or “battle box”).

But the president himself had indulged in inflammatory rhetoric against the former president. “Trump poses many threats to our country,” he wrote on December 20, “but the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy. If we lose that, we lose everything.” Biden reiterated on June 28, “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.” Again, on July 5, he declared, “Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy, and we cannot let him win.”

It doesn’t take a genius to imagine how such rhetoric could inspire a would-be assassin. If Donald Trump is really such a genuine threat to our nation, then stopping him is patriotic. With the Biden campaign shuffling towards Bingo night, and with no electoral substitute, a Trump victory at the ballot box appears increasingly likely. So, the most committed opponents of Trump — those who truly believe the rhetoric about him posing an existential threat — are increasingly open to other methods of stopping him. Sadly, this 20-year-old seems to have convinced himself that Trump must be stopped at all costs, even at the cost of his own life and the lives of other rallygoers.

Clearly, this chain of reasoning reaches an obscene conclusion, but not an insane one. It logically follows from the premise that Trump is a threat to democracy who must be stopped at all costs — unless, of course, that charge is not and never was true. It is and always has been dangerous political rhetoric.

Who really poses a threat to our nation, our freedoms, and our democratic system of government? Hostile foreign dictators who squelch freedoms in their own countries and view America as a rival on the world stage — particularly those with large armies and nuclear arsenals. When defending ourselves against these powers, the use of force is justified; that’s why we have a military. To label a political opponent a “threat to this nation” is to equate him with these foreign powers and tacitly endorse the use of force against him.

The irony of this situation is that the most diehard defenders of “democracy” are increasingly open to countering perceived threats to democracy through un-democratic means — whether that’s smashing police cars, burning cities, or trashing campus green spaces. Trump’s bid for political power consists of securing the support of one of America’s two major political parties and holding various campaign events in order to attempt to persuade citizens to vote for him on election day. How could he be more democratic? Alas, his opponents prefer a vision of democracy where only one party wins elections.

The assassination attempt does not appear to have dampened overheated campaign rhetoric. On Monday afternoon, left-wing demonstrators gathered near the Republican National Convention and chanted, “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!”

Another protest chant may be even more concerning, “Hey hey ho ho, the Republicans have to go!” Republicans are already the party out of power. What does it mean that they “have to go”?