Political violence has long been a part of American life, but recent events, including a second attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, have ignited a debate over the role of rhetoric in encouraging such violence.
It should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention since Trump announced his candidacy for president back in 2015 that the left’s consistent use of incendiary language (framing him as a Russian agent, as literally Hitler, and as an existential threat to America and democracy) doesn’t just dehumanize him. It also fosters a volatile climate where political violence against him and his supporters becomes justifiable — especially to individuals who increasingly see themselves as “defenders of democracy” or “anti-fascists.”
The left, however, doesn’t see it that way. In fact, even after a second assassination attempt, Democrats and the media still believe it is not their rhetoric that is to blame for the attempts on Trump’s life, but rather Trump himself.
Hours after the second assassination attempt was reported, “Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt went on the air and stated: “Today’s apparent assassination attempt comes amid increasingly fierce rhetoric on the campaign trail itself. Mr. Trump, his running mate, J.D. Vance, continue to make baseless claims about Haitian immigrants in [Springfield,] Ohio. This weekend, there were new bomb threats in that town.”
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre joined in, once again calling Trump a “threat.” In response, Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre, “How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump, other than ‘threat?’”
Jean-Pierre proceeded to attempt to gaslight all those on the right with similar concerns. “The question that you’re asking … is also incredibly dangerous in the way that you’re asking it,” said Jean-Pierre, “because American people are watching … Because it — your question involved a comment and a statement — and, you know, it is — that is also incredibly dangerous when we have been very clear in — in condemning political violence from here.”
In other words, to the left, repeatedly lying and calling Trump an existential threat to America is not dangerous, regardless of the number of attempts on Trump’s life. The real danger only arises when someone questions whether those on the left should stop lying about Trump and moderate their rhetoric.
Of course, this framing does not apply to those on the right when they legitimately express concern over the chaos caused by a massive influx of 20,000 Haitian immigrants into Springfield, Ohio. It is then, as Lester Holt alluded, that words magically become violence once again, even when no one is directly targeting Haitian immigrants, and, as Gov. Mike DeWine noted in a Sept. 16 press conference, all 33 separate bomb threats received at that time had turned out to be hoaxes, with many coming from overseas.
Springfield citizens have passionately expressed their concerns over mass immigration in op-eds and city commission meetings, which included alleged incidents involving wildlife. And so, Trump and Vance have rightfully highlighted their plight.
Whether various forms of wildlife are being eaten by Haitian immigrants is seemingly up for debate as statements from residents have been walked back after immense social pressure; however, the adverse effects of mass immigration on small towns and cities like Springfield, Ohio, are not debatable. But because the left has been able to seize upon the ambiguity around pets being eaten, the entire discussion around what mass immigration is doing to towns across America is now labeled as “hateful rhetoric” and even “misinformation.”
This plays to the left’s desire, and ability, to censor its political opposition while establishing its narratives as the only acceptable form of discourse.
To that end, Hillary Clinton recently came out in support of jailing Americans who post “misinformation” for “election interference” and yet has no reservations in falsely tying Trump to Project 2025 — in which he was not involved — and promoting the claim that Trump desires to be a dictator, which is taken out of context.
Are these claims from Clinton a form of misinformation designed to influence our elections? Of course they are, but the right doesn’t have control of the infrastructure behind mass media, and so Clinton speaks without being fact-checked — as Kamala Harris did during her debate with Trump, where every lie from Harris also went unchallenged.
The left has cultivated a powerful monopoly on both political violence as a form of acceptable protest and the control of what constitutes “inflammatory” and “hateful” rhetoric, using both as tools to undermine their opponents on the right. They have, in effect, weaponized words and their meaning.
The media, serving as an appendage of the ruling regime, play a crucial role in amplifying leftist narratives, justifying the left’s actions while framing any challenge from the right as the actual “danger.” This imbalance, where the left wields both incendiary rhetoric and actual violence to attack political opponents while controlling the narrative around both, threatens the very future of our country.
Without a commitment to toning down the incendiary rhetoric and restoring a semblance of balance in news reporting — both of which the left has no interest in doing — the risk of a catastrophic incident of political violence will only increase.
