The attempted assassination of Donald Trump is a stark reminder of the vitriolic rhetoric that has infested our political landscape. The shooting, which narrowly missed the former president’s head, was a culmination of years of demonizing and dehumanizing Trump and his supporters by the political left and corporate media. By portraying Trump as a threat to democracy and likening him to Adolf Hitler, pundits and pundits have created an environment that normalizes violence against those perceived as political enemies.
The consequences of this kind of rhetoric are devastating. It has created a culture where politicians and media personalities feel emboldened to make dangerous and explicit threats against Trump and his allies. The Washington Post‘s Robert Kagan, for example, wrote in November that a Trump presidency would be a “Trump dictatorship,” predicting that Trump would become a tyrant akin to Hitler. Other pundits and politicians have followed suit, echoing Kagan’s rhetoric and painting a stark picture of a Trump-led America.
An article in Politico written last December by Holly Otterbein, Elena Schneider, and Jonathan Lemire gave cover to Biden and his team for comparing Trump to Hitler, arguing “historians” also agree that Trump is akin to a dictator like Hitler.
The Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein said Trump’s second term “could create the greatest threat to the nation’s cohesion since the Civil War.”
The Hill’s opinion contributor Jacob Ware tried to lessen the blow in a January piece warning that “assassination attempts are on the rise worldwide — is the US next?”
This kind of language has serious consequences, including the potential to inspire violence against political opponents. The Federalist‘s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway has dubbed this genre of rhetoric “Assassination Prep,” warning that it has the potential to incite violence and destroy political opponents.
Despite the gravity of this situation, the media is downplaying the attempted assassination as a mere “incident” or “shooting.” The Denver Post, for example, captioned a photo of Trump with the phrase “Trump says he was shot in ear,” minimizing the seriousness of the event. But the fact remains: Trump was the victim of a deliberate attempt to take his life, and the consequences of this kind of rhetoric must be taken seriously.
In the weeks leading up to the assassination attempt, numerous pundits and politicians took to the media to warn of the dangers of Trump’s alleged authoritarian tendencies. Some, like Ron Brownstein, claimed that a second Trump term would pose a threat to national cohesion, while others, like Jacob Ware, blamed Trump’s rhetoric for fueling political violence. Ware, in his January piece, argued that Trump’s language “dehumanizes political rivals, and may in turn demystify the act of killing them.” But is Ware’s critique a genuine expression of concern, or just another attempt to demonize and delegitimize Trump?
The media’s response to this attempted assassination will be telling. Will they continue to downplay the seriousness of the event and blame Trump for the violence that has escalated in recent months? Or will they take a step back and acknowledge the dangers of their own rhetoric? The answers to these questions will reveal the extent to which the media is committed to holding all political actors accountable, regardless of party affiliation.
