It Is Dangerous to Blame Pro-Democracy Rhetoric for the Trump Shooting
It Is Dangerous to Blame Pro-Democracy Rhetoric for the Trump Shooting
Political criticism must not be conflated with political violence.
On July 13 at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a gunman tried to shoot Donald Trump, which federal authorities describe as an assassination attempt. The gunman and one person in the crowd were killed; two other attendees were gravely injured. Trump's campaign said he was "fine." The attack has no place in a democracy: campaigns and elections exist -- and still function -- to resolve political differences without violence.
While President Biden and leading political figures from both parties unequivocally condemned the attack, top Trump allies sought to blame rhetoric calling the former president a threat to democracy for the shooting. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a top contender to be Trump's vice president, posted on X, "Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs." Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C), another V.P. contender, posted: "For years, Democrats and their allies in the media have recklessly stoked fears, calling President Trump and other conservatives threats to democracy. Their inflammatory rhetoric puts lives at risk." At the time Vance and Scott posted -- and as of this writing -- there has been no information made public about the motives of the 20-year-old shooter.
Trump uses violent rhetoric: he has called his enemies "vermin," warned of a "bloodbath" if he loses, and said immigrants are "poisoning the blood" of the country. By contrast, calling Trump a "threat to democracy" is taking him at his word about his second term agenda.
On a logical level, there is no contradiction in opposing political violence and naming Trump a threat to democracy for his authoritarian second term agenda. Journalist Emily Tamkin posted on X, "Actually you can warn against authoritarianism and deplore political violence. The one doesn’t endorse or excuse the other." She's right. Political violence never leads to a better democracy. On the contrary, it can lead to authoritarianism. In Germany, the pivotal 20th century example of an advanced democracy becoming a dictatorship, widespread left-right street clashes in the Weimar Republic contributed to a sense of chaos which led to its demise and the rise of the Nazis.
The shooting -- and the subsequent attempt to conflate political criticism with violence -- could serve as a dangerous pretext for Trump to carry out authoritarian policies in a potential second term. Trump has already vowed vengeance against his perceived enemies. Trump has said: "I am your justice…I am your retribution." He and his allies could try to use the assassination attempt to justify his plans to use the Justice Department to retaliate against perceived enemies and deploy the military to quell civilian protests. These actions would likely be protected by a recent Supreme Court decision that states that presidents have absolute immunity for exercising their core constitutional powers and a presumption of immunity for official acts.
However, none of these things has to happen: the U.S. still has the democratic mechanism of the November elections. Activities like canvassing and speaking at events are protected by the First Amendment. A recent survey from the University of Chicago has shown that about 7 percent of Americans believe that political violence would be justified to restore Trump to the presidency and about 10 percent believe it would be justified to prevent him from taking office. They are wrong that political violence is justified. Americans can and should be smart enough to hold two thoughts together: Trump's policies remain a threat to democracy, and the democratic process is the only way to oppose them.