Violent Speech Might Not Cause Violent Acts. So What?
With the exception of those who explain themselves, like John Wilkes Booth and Leon Czolgosz, political assassins tend to take their motives to the grave. Though the real reasons for their acts tend to be personal to the point of quirky—like John Hinckley hoping to impress Jodie Foster—Americans often point the finger at inflammatory rhetoric. Dehumanizing speech, we assume, is bound to prompt some weak-minded weirdo to act out.
Anti-JFK “wanted for treason” posters distributed in Dallas shortly before the November 1963 assassination were cited as evidence that right-wing extremism had created a toxic atmosphere, implying that the city itself had sort of killed the president. But Dallas didn’t shoot Kennedy; Lee Harvey Oswald did. Though his motives were nebulous, his politics leaned Left.
After Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot by her constituent in 2011, liberal media outlets took note of a map tweeted by a PAC associated with Sarah Palin released nine months earlier, which displayed targets over districts, including Giffords’, being challenged by GOP candidates. As The Atlantic’s James Fallows put it, the media asked “whether there is a connection between” such “extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery” as that published by Palin and “actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be?”
There was no connection. The shooter had never seen Palin’s map. Yet, when Palin sued The New York Times over an editorial that drew a direct line between her map and the murder attempt, she lost—and was ordered to pay the Times’ legal fees.
Correlation does not equal causation. What common sense dictates must be true—what feels true—that violent talk begets real-world violence, trumps what actually is true: mentally disturbed people do crazy things sometimes.
Still, the toxic-talk-is-dangerous meme persists. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Sen. J.D. Vance tweeted/Xed after the shooting of former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”
“Directly”? There isn’t even evidence of an indirect link.
The alleged shooter, 20, was a registered Republican who donated $15 to a liberal PAC in 2021. Confusing! He’s dead, no one has found a manifesto, and at this point Vance is just resorting to the usual speculation.
It seems unlikely that any sturdy peer-reviewed study of political assassins and would-be assassins will emerge any time soon that would settle the question of the relationship, if any, between a culture of violence—dehumanization, intimidation, threats of physical harm and actual killings and assaults—and attempts on the lives of politicians. Even so, an incident like the shooting in Pennsylvania should make Americans ask themselves whether lowering the temperature might not be its own reward.
As a leftist who does not support Trump, I was shocked not only at the stream of vitriol that swamped social media after the Pennsylvania shooting, much of it bemoaning the fact that Trump survived, but at the willingness of so many people to express such extreme opinions in public, under their own names, in an instantly searchable medium. Either they are unafraid of social repercussions or, more likely, it never crossed their minds that there might be any.
It is not hard to imagine why. These opinions are now mainstream.
Vance is right about one thing. Throughout the current campaign and going back at least to the start of Trump’s first run for the White House in 2016, Democrats and their media allies have characterized Trump and his MAGA movement as an existential threat to democracy.
Some went further.
Five days before Trump was shot, First Lady Jill Biden told a gathering of Georgia Democrats: “Does Donald Trump know anything about military families? No. He disparages those who sacrifice for our country. His own chief of staff said he called POWs and those who died in war losers and suckers. He’s evil.”
There is no need to regurgitate a litany of overheated hate speech, especially in recent years. We all hear it. Demonization of political opponents, along with the determination that opposing partisans are not merely misguided or ignorant but willfully malign, is as old as politics. It is worth noting, however, that our government has normalized political assassinations overseas in a way that makes it difficult to (pretend to) be shocked when they occur here. President Obama had Osama bin Laden whacked rather than brought to justice, President Trump rubbed out a top Iranian general as casually as smooshing a bug (we’re not even at war with Iran) and even the press parrots official statements that sanitize such state-sanctioned murders with anodyne words like “eliminated,” “got rid of” and “took out.”
We may never know whether there is a link, direct or otherwise, between a culture that treats killing cavalierly and citizens who resort to violence against our leaders. Assuming that there’s no connection, however, what would be the harm in speaking more gently and civilly to one another? Depersonalizing our politics might open the space to address actual issues, some of which—like the high expense of and difficulty accessing psychiatric care—that really are driving us nuts.
(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)
The Final Countdown – 7/16/24 – Trump Kicks Off RNC With VP Pick
The Final Countdown – 7/15/24 – Nation Reacts to Trump’s Attempted Assassination
DMZ America Podcast #155: Assassin Shoots Trump
Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt yesterday afternoon when a gunman shot at him at a rally in Pennsylvania, grazing the former President’s right ear. He appeared defiant, raising his fist as Secret Service agents spirited him away from the scene. Political cartoonists and analysts Ted Rall (on the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) look into the political and cultural ramifications from the history of political violence in the United States to gun culture to the upcoming Republican National Convention to the question of whether overheated rhetoric, this time by Democrats, contributed to the current volatile situation.
Watch the Video Version: here.
(Video will be live as of 10:45 Eastern time July 14th.)
The Final Countdown – 7/12/24 – New Russiagate Claims Ahead of 2024 Election
The Final Countdown – 7/11/24 – Americans Brace for Trump’s Long-Awaited VP Pick
The Final Countdown – 7/10/24 – Americans Brace for Trump’s Long-Awaited VP Pick
Biden’s Senility Obscures Trump’s Senility
Why, frustrated Democrats are asking, is the news media ignoring signs that former President Donald Trump is (also) suffering cognitive impairment? Why are they focusing on President Joe Biden’s debate performance and calling on him, but not Trump, following his conviction on 34 felony counts, to drop out of the campaign?
You have reasonable questions, I have answers:
Biden is the incumbent, not Trump. As much as Democrats would prefer otherwise, elections are a referendum on the incumbent.
Voters have long been worried about Biden’s age. The debate confirmed their concerns about the 81-year-old leader and added a new one: Democrats and their media allies have been gaslighting them about Biden’s physical and mental condition.
Trump’s felony convictions, though politically problematic are not inherently disqualifying. A felon can perform the duties of president. A senile person cannot.
Trump has been out in public, unscripted, a lot more than Biden. His performance was no worse than usual; if anything, he came off as calmer. Biden has hardly held any unscripted events, even in private. His deterioration came as a surprise.
Biden asked for this debate (“make my day, pal,” he told Trump), wanted a high-profile moment and then fell flat on his face when voters obligingly paid attention—this even though the Trump campaign agreed to all of the White House’s terms and conditions for the event. All eyes were on Trump—and rightfully so.
Focus on Trump’s debate responses, however, and it becomes clear that Democrats have a point. Biden isn’t the only presidential candidate Americans ought to be concerned about when it comes to age and cognitive acuity.
One comment alone provides sufficient reason to question whether Donald Trump should get the launch codes back: “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely immaculate clean air. And we had it. We had H2O,” he said. “We had the best numbers ever and we were using all forms of energy, all forms, everything.”
We had H2O. Unlike a lot of what Trump says, it’s true. The U.S. had water. (The rest is lies.) But who says that? Who talks like that? Who says something that weird and doesn’t have the self-awareness to walk it back, tweak it or laugh at himself? Only someone who has something wrong with their brain.
Now here’s Trump on abortion:
“Now the states are working it out. If you look at Ohio, it was a decision that was – that was an end result that was a little bit more liberal than you would have thought. Kansas I would say the same thing. Texas is different. Florida is different. But they’re all making their own decisions right now. And right now, the states control it. That’s the vote of the people. Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in the exceptions. I am a person that believes. And frankly, I think it’s important to believe in the exceptions. Some people – you have to follow your heart. Some people don’t believe in that. But I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I think it’s very important. Some people don’t. Follow your heart. But you have to get elected also and – because that has to do with other things. You got to get elected. The problem they have is they’re radical, because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth – after birth. If you look at the former governor of Virginia, he was willing to do this. He said, we’ll put the baby aside and we’ll determine what we do with the baby. Meaning, we’ll kill the baby.”
What the hell?
Here he is on migrants:
“They’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen before. And you’re reading it like these three incredible young girls over the last few days. One of them, I just spoke to the mother, and we just had the funeral for this girl, 12 years old. This is horrible what’s taken place. What’s taken place in our country, we’re literally an uncivilized country now. He doesn’t want it to be. He just doesn’t know. He opened the borders nobody’s ever seen anything like. And we have to get a lot of these people out and we have to get them out fast, because they’re going to destroy our country.”
Asked about Palestinian statehood, Trump replied:
“But before we do that, the problem we have is that we spend all the money. So they kill us on trade. I made great trade deals with the European nations, because if you add them up, they’re about the same size economically. Their economy is about the same size as the United States. And they were – no cars. No – they don’t want anything that we have. But we’re supposed to take their cars, their food, their everything, their agriculture. I changed that. But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.”
These are insane rants. Are they Biden-level nuts? Maybe, maybe not. But they are too nuts for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Set aside Trump’s grandiosity, politics and the question of truth versus falsity. Read Trump’s debate passages for comprehension, linearity and clarity, allowing for the fact that conversational speech differs from the written word, and there are few through lines and little continuous thought to be found. The expression is manic, spasmodic and scattershot. The grammar is dead wrong, the ideas internally contradictory.
Trump’s word salad, psychologists say, is a sign of dementia and schizophrenia. According to the Alzheimer Society of Canada, “common behaviors [of a dementia patient] can include mixing up words (word salad) and creating false memories without motivation (confabulation).” We’ve seen both with Trump. He also exhibits logorrhea, i.e. excessive talking. Why say something once when 14 times will do?
What is wrong with Biden? He probably has Parkinson’s disease.
What is wrong with Trump? I don’t know exactly. Maybe that’s just his personality. More likely, something is wrong. To put it another way, it doesn’t matter if Trump is sane if he’s unable or unwilling to communicate clearly. Whatever is going on with Trump, or isn’t, should be the subject of serious consideration during this political year. Trump, 78, should submit to a cognitive test administered by an independent expert.
Biden’s evident senility and his unwillingness to step aside for the good of the Democratic Party are obscuring the equally important issue of whether Trump is also mentally fit to serve as president.
(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)