Donald Trump, and Only Donald Trump, is to Blame for the Rhetoric Around Political Violence—and its Consequences

On Saturday, July 13, 2024, at approximately 6:10 P.M. E.D.T., former President Trump was nearly assassinated at a rally in Pennsylvania. The shooter was inches—or a single inch—away from dealing a fatal blow. Trump's ear was grazed by a bullet but, he sustained no serious injuries; some attendees did, including one that died. It pains me because this act of violence—a single individual's decision—attempted to supersede the basic tenets of democracy: that our candidates can, with ideas and discussion, compete for votes and then we the people decide who becomes President. It's a direct attack on democracy here and everywhere. A single person almost took that away from us; this very precious and delicate thing.

The state of our democracy and this election has weighed on me but it's been in the back of my mind because I've been so busy with work, life, and writing. The election is a sort of monster in my mind, a monster that's in the guest room of my mind's house. Every time I consume the news—which is a lot—I open the door to the guest room and pay the monster a visit. At the end of the day, I close the door with lock and key and leave it behind, moving on with my life. I've done nothing tangible to tame this monster—to do something about this election—but I can't really afford to. Every hour of my day is accounted for, every dollar allocated, all in an effort to fulfill my dream of writing The Milkman Model book. I work to afford time to write. I'm an entrepreneur again. But, when I got home from work Saturday night, my fiancé met me outside the door and said, "Have you heard what happened?" She rushed me to the television and I sat in horror as the clip of Trump hitting the ground replayed over and over and over and over. Last night, the monster burst out of its room and ransacked the house.

I couldn't sleep.

While watching the immediate coverage following the assassination attempt, I braced myself for the Republican talking points I knew were coming. I could feel the pressure to say the thing building in the commentators on CNN and it was Scott Jennings, Republican political commentator/operative, who broke first, saying:

We have people in this country who are dedicated to telling half the country that if Donald Trump wins an election, the country will end, the Constitution will go away. The rhetoric around him [Trump] over the last few weeks that if he wins an election, our country will end, our democracy will end, it's the last election that we'll ever have—these things have consequences, OK?"

The stakes are too high, the moment too important, for me to let this go. Scott Jennings triggered something in me and inspired me to write this rebuttal.

No President has ever fomented violence towards their political rivals in the history of this country more than Trump. It's not surprising to me that the seeds of violence that Trump has been spreading since his entrance into politics came sprouting back at him on Saturday.

Trump's entry into the political scene was in 1989, when he took out a full-page ad in several newspapers calling for the "Central Park Five," who were five teenagers accused of raping a woman in Central Park, to be killed. The ad, in huge bold letters, read "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY." The five young black/latino teenagers all served years in prison but were later exonerated and awarded millions of dollars in damages by the city for wrongful imprisonment. Some 25 years later, when Trump became President, he was asked about the exoneration and he called it "a disgrace."

Trump's second big foray into politics was to claim Barrack Obama was not born in the United States, therefore, not eligible to be President. He peddled this stupid conspiracy theory for years (he still might if you ask him) and it was obviously racist but also dangerous. Michelle Obama, in her 2018 memoir Becoming, wrote:

What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls? Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family's safety at risk. And for this, I'd never forgive him.

The list of violent rhetoric that Trump has poured proverbial gasoline on—or not poured proverbial water on—is easy to forget because it's so long.

Have we forgotten about Charlottesville? Where a rally of white supremacy groups were protesting the removal of a confederate statue, and one KKK member, rammed his car into a group of counter-protestors, killing one person and injuring dozens more. He's now in prison on a 419 year sentence. In the immediate aftermath, then-President Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides." And, in case we forgot, the entire reason why different groups of white supremacists were openly uniting in public is because Trump had actively and not-so-subtly courted them. Remember, in 2020 when Chris Wallace at a debate asked him to condemn a white supremacist group and his response was "Stand back and stand by"?

Did we forget, when Trump claimed that the FBI was "Ready to take him out," after they raided his home in Mar-a-Lago because he stole classified documents? He also said, "Biden's DOJ was authorized to use DEADLY FORCE," and that FBI agents were "Locked and loaded," even though it was a routine raid and he wasn't even there; he was in New York at the time of the raid. And, because of this false picture Trump painted, a Trump supporter in Ohio was so enraged he drove to the FBI field office in Cincinnati and tried to break in with an AR-15. Luckily, no one was harmed, except for him, who, in a standoff with the FBI, was shot dead.

When Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in his home, Trump said nothing for days, while both Democrats and Republicans condemened the attack. He did finally say, "It was a terrible thing," but then, not even a month later, he was dishing out conspiracy theories as to what happened. When body cam footage came out of the attack, dispelling all the conspiracy theories, Trump commented on the video on Truth Social saying, "Wow, that's weird, and nasty." A year later, he was mocking the attack on Paul Pelosi at his rally.

He could have quelled the flames of political violence. Instead, he decided to sit back and watch the flames grow.

Have we forgotten, that he encouraged the crowds at his rally to beat up a heckler, even offering to pay their legal fees? Remember the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer? One of the criminals described Whitmer as a "tyrant." What inspired him was Trump tweeting, "LIBERATE MICHIGAN," which was a response to her COVID-19 lockdowns. After the kidnapping was foiled, Governor Whitmer said, "Hate groups heard the president's words not as a rebuke, but as a rallying cry." Then-presidential-candidate Biden echoed similar sentiments.

He never condemned the criminals trying to kidnap Governor Whitmer.

His tweet wasn't a direct call to action for a kidnapping but, when he doesn't condemn them, doesn't it seem that this is the behavior he's looking for? Trump has, from time to time, condemned violent attacks but, they are all half-hearted, obviously scripted and read from a teleprompter, or immediately contradicted or walked back by him. They aren’t so much condemnations than him saying what his team is begging him to say. When you put his weak condemnations—or long delays to condemn, such as the Paul Pelosi attack—up against his unscripted words and actions taken, they mean nothing.

Trump never throws water on the kindling flames of political violence—especially violence that supports him.

He tweets meme videos of him beating up his political opponents—he's done this with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Every time he's been condemned by Democrats and the media. Every time his response is to shrug it off and Fox News defends him by saying it's not a big deal, you can't take a joke? They laugh it if off and take great pleasure that they are riling up the "libs." Whether it be meme videos or any other—of probably hundreds?—of incidents where Trump has fomented political violence, it's been condemned by Democrats and the media and it's been reiterated time and time again: this rhetoric can lead to actual violence. Words matter. This country has a history of this type of violence. Every time Trump has laughed it off.

He's no longer laughing.

You can't legally link what happened at the Cincinnati FBI field office to Trump, nor the Governor Whitmer plotted kidnapping, nor a host of other violent acts because the law requires a direct connection and the law is, as it should be, set at a high bar in order to put someone behind bars. But morally? Morally, I blame Trump for all contemporary politically violent rhetoric. All of it.

But there is one thing we can legally tie Trump to and that's January 6.

All of Trump's previous rhetoric cumulated on January 6. Especially when all his previous attempts to overturn the 2020 election failed: His attempt to pressure Vice President Pence into accepting fake electors failed; his attempt to have the Governor of Georgia 'find 11,780 votes' failed; his attempt to have Congress reject the electors, which would then trigger Congress (not voters) to vote on the President also failed (although 147 Republicans voted to object the electoral votes from states Biden won). When all this failed he turned towards violence, directing a mob to attack the Capitol on January 6.

He called his supporters to come on January 6 and had been promoting it for months. His supporters arrived from all over the country in droves. At the rally before the insurrection, Trump noticed that a lot of his supporters were outside of the rally area and when he asked why, he was told that they couldn't get past the magnetometers because they were armed. His response was, "I don't care that they have weapons"; "They're not here for me"; "Let my people in."

He wanted to lead his supporters from the White House to the Capitol but, the Secret Service didn't let him. When he realized that the presidential limo wasn't going to the Capitol, he lunged at the Secret Service driver and tried to take over the wheel by force.

I don't need to describe the events of that day because we all saw it with our own eyes. But, what would have happened if Capitol Police Officer Goodman—a hero—hadn't fooled the insurrectionists and tricked them from going away from the Senate Chamber instead of towards it? What would have happened if other insurrectionists would have made a left turn instead of a right turn and found Nancy Pelosi? Or Vice President Pence?

What was Trump doing during the insurrection? He was watching it on TV like an arsonist admiring the building he set fire to go up in flames. He started this. He brought wood, gasoline, and a flamethrower to the rally before the insurrection and was intent on bringing hell to the Capitol. Secret Service didn't let him, but his supporters lit their pitchforks and took that fire to the Capitol for him. So while Trump watched the Capitol—and by extension, our country—burn, he could have put out a statement condemning it, asking people to stop. He could have used his voice as a fire extinguisher. But what did he do instead? He tweeted this: "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done." This tweet made the mob combust and led them to yell, "Hang Mike Pence!"

When he did finally tell his supporters to stop, the Capitol was in embers. The police had already retaken control of the building. But of course, he didn't fully condemn the insurrectionists, because it would be like condemning himself. He told them to go home but he also told them, "We love you. You're very special."

January 6 could have been a massacre and it was this close to happening. Just as close as the bullet that grazed Trump's ear.

Immediately after the failed Trump assassination, there were legitimate questions as to how the shooter was able to get in position to take the shot he did. And everybody, especially Republicans, were calling for a full investigation. I agree with this. Whenever there is this sort of attack on our democracy, there should be a thorough bipartisan congressional investigation, like the 9/11 Commission. I think it's a logical position to take that virtually everybody would agree with—except Republicans. Republicans, sensing that January 6 would not make them look good, decided to stonewall the investigation. Steve Banon, a well-known white supremacist and Trump political advisor, is in jail as of this writing because he defied a subpoena from the January 6 Select Committee (a bipartisan committee, I might add). Another half dozen or so Republicans also defied those subpoenas, including Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, who is now the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. California Representative Eric Swalwell, who also sits on the House Judiciary Committee, constantly taunts Jordan with a timer on his desk that displays the amount of time in days, hours, minutes, and seconds Jordan has been in contempt of Congress.

There was never a full and complete investigation into the events of January 6 because of Republican obstruction. Maybe we'll get more details when Trump goes to court over his role on January 6, but the Supreme Court may have prevented that from happening. We'll see.

But as far as how we remember January 6, Trump and Republicans have been trying to whitewash it. A Republican called January 6 a "normal tourist visit." Trump calls jailed insurrectionists "hostages" and has vowed to use his power as President, if re-elected, to pardon them.

We all saw how serious January 6 was with our own eyes.

Trump still denies he lost the 2020 election. And if he loses again, what will his supporters do? If he wins? He's said he will use the DOJ to persecute his political opponents. His lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that the President could direct Seal Team Six to kill his political opponent and he would be immune to prosecution. The Supreme Court, maybe not buying that particular argument, bought the idea that the Office of the President deserved more immunity, therefore expanding executive powers. He attempted a coup of the United States but is somehow a free man. He's a convicted felon, found of falsifying business records and defrauding voters. He was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carrol, in a civil suit, and owes hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because he can't stop denying it in public. He's demonized the media. He's an adulterer (Stormy Daniels), a con man (Trump Inc.), a cheap, a thief, a racist, etc. etc. etc. He openly talks about how the Supreme Court should side with him because they owe it to him since he put them on the bench—and they consistently do. He has a love affair with dictators, most notably Putin. A dozen or so of his associates have either pleaded guilty to crimes or are serving jail time. He, too, has been convicted. So yes, there is obvious concern when the left—and honestly, the centrists—say Trump is a danger to democracy and the country.

When Scott Jennings blames the left's rhetoric around Trump for leading to his attempted assassination, I think it does have a sliver of validity. Talk of doom can lead people to take extreme actions. But here's the main difference between Democrats and Trump: Democrats are raising what I consider legitimate concerns over a Trump presidency because of his history of political violence and his continual contribution to it. It's not Democrats saying Trump will be seeking revenge as President; it's Trump saying it. On the other hand, Trump talking about Joe Biden trying to kill him (which is obviously ludicrous) and everything else he says to foment political violence is and has always been reckless, unacceptable, and has the potential to cause what happened on July 13.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about policy positions, where, obviously, Democrats and Republicans are going to differ. I'm talking about rhetoric that has the potential to "raise the temperature." Rhetoric that inspires people to take matters into their own hands because of how dire they are being told the situation is. Democrats are politicians too, and, they too, on occasion, commit offensive behavior (see Senator Menendez conviction) or they spin the news in their favor but, they are never actively trying to say things they hope lead to violence.

There is an element with Trump that is unique to him and it’s the fact that he's constantly lying or just making things up. Pushing a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton is running a pedophile ring in Washington D.C. (Pizzagate)—which is so obviously absurd—foments violence. A Trump supporter walked into this pizza restaurant where the alleged pedophile ring was with an AR-15 to "self-investigate."

Trump is screaming "FIRE!" over and over again in the proverbial political theater.

And so, there is a false equivalency when it comes to the Democrat's rhetoric and Trump's. The Democrat's rhetoric doesn't even register compared to the nearly decade-long din of violent rhetoric ever since Trump announced he was running for President. The frequency of that rhetoric along with the dog whistles for violence and the clear-as-day calls for attacks and, of course, January 6, does not in any way, not in the slightest, compare to the left's rhetoric. It's intellectually dishonest—scratch that—it's straight up dishonest.

And, I would hope, that at some point, you have to put politics aside and try to calm the flames and not continue to score political points. But I doubt Trump—and by extension the GOP—will do that.

It doesn't really matter to a lunatic who decides they are going to assassinate a President or shoot up a school whether what they've heard is true, made-up, or hyper-hyperbolic but, we should distinguish the difference between honest discourse and discourse soaked in violent rhetoric designed to aggitate and dehumanize the opponent, and Trump exclusively traffics in the latter.

Trump, just a couple of months ago, suggested that Joe Biden was trying to assassinate him. It didn't garner that much attention because he says so many outrageous things that it just kind of flows down a sewage-filled river with all his other statements. Trump has been playing up himself as a martyr, and his prophecy almost came true. But, what should the attempted assassination buy him?

Besides immediate sympathy for his life being in danger, it shouldn't buy him anything. He is the one that has been screaming wolf, screaming he's being wrongfuly prosecuted because, of course, he's never, in his mind, done anything wrong in his life. Now the wolf, in this case, lone wolf shooter, finally appeared. Crying wolf has been good for him, he raises a ton of money for his campaign every time he says the federal government is prosecuting him—or trying to kill him—and then all of that money gets shuffled to paying his legal fees.

There should be no violence or alluding to violence in political discourse because it causes things like this to happen. We know that but, Trump ignores it. He is, singularly, responsible for the violent rhetoric in our political discourse. He should not skate this responsibility because he was a target of violence that he is often directing at others. He, obviously, didn't ask to be shot at but, he created the environment for this to happen. I'm glad he didn't die but besides that, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. Trump is like an arsonist setting fire to his own house and then being shocked he's burning.

Politically speaking, I think the failed assassination helps Trump. Maybe it unites Democrats to fully support Joe Biden. Who knows what will happen. There is only one thing that I know for sure will happen and that's if Trump gets elected or is ever considered a serious candidate for President again, this violence will continue. And one way to put a stop to it is making sure he doesn't win this November.

I'll end with this. How do we honestly think Trump would react if the roles were reversed and Joe Biden was nearly assassinated? What would he say? How would he act?