From words to projectiles | La Presse

(Washington) What is the path from hateful speech to incitement to violence and attempted murder?

After the assassination attempt on him on July 13, Donald Trump showed a rare moment of restraint. It was remarkable given his character, and even more so given the gravity of the moment.

Two days later, the Republican convention opened in Milwaukee, and the topic was discussed only quietly. Even in his acceptance speech, the former president was careful not to attribute responsibility for the crime to his Democratic opponents.

Some Republican lawmakers, including J.D. Vance, had blamed Democrats for their aggressive “rhetoric.” But it quickly seemed that Republicans wanted to calm things down and emphasize the need to unite the country.

At that precise moment in midsummer, Joe Biden was still the unofficial Democratic nominee, and the polls were saying that Trump was headed for victory. The moment could not be wasted. The campaign quickly printed T-shirts of Trump, fist in the air, blood on his face, shouting “fight.”

Two months later, the entire electoral scenario has been rewritten. Despite his commitment never to speak about the attack again, the Republican candidate is returning to it more and more. Last Tuesday, during the debate, Donald Trump said that he had “probably been shot because of the things they say about [lui] “.

In some right-wing circles, doubts are beginning to linger over the true causes of the Butler, Pennsylvania, incident. Could it be a federal agency stunt? A podcast host asked Trump if it could be an “inside job” to prevent him from regaining power.

“It’s very fishy, ​​the more you look at it, the more you wonder if there’s something else,” the former president replied two weeks ago.

And here comes a second incident. This is not technically an attempted murder yet, since the suspect fled before he could fire a single shot. But the man charged yesterday was in a firing position with a military-style weapon, a telescope and a camera.

Once again, conspiracy theories, this time anti-Trump, are percolating into my emails: What if this was a set-up by Trump? There is absolutely no evidence of that. Unless you believe in a vast conspiracy involving the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Republican Party. Pretty much the entire event was captured on camera.

So let us return to the victim of what has all the appearances of a political assassination plan.

Less than 24 hours after the suspect’s arrest, Trump blamed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for another event that could have cost him his life. The Democratic “rhetoric” that he threatens democracy.

What about it?

In polls over the past 10 years, we’ve seen a growing number of Americans say that violence against the government can be justified, says UQAM professor Charles-Philippe David. From about 10% 30 years ago, that proportion has risen to 34%.

In June, 10% of Democratic voters said violence could be justified to prevent Donald Trump from returning to power. Another poll in April showed that 28% of Republicans and 12% of Democrats believed that “violence may be necessary to bring the country back on track.”².

But from there to making a direct link between the attacks and the speech of Biden and Harris, there is a dizzying logical leap.

It is understandable that Donald Trump is shocked, even traumatized.

But he is in no position to give lessons in oratorical civility.

For the record, it may be useful to recall some of the victim’s words.

• He called several journalists and media outlets “corrupt,” “liars,” and, above all, “enemies of the people.” During the Terror in France, they were guillotined; in the Soviet Union, they were shot.
• The Democrats want to “destroy the country.” Not just impoverish it, weaken it. No: destroy it. That’s a reason for rebellion, if true.
• There are countless politicians and opponents who are “crazy” in his eyes.
• “I hate Taylor Swift”: the very day of the events in West Palm Beach, candidate Trump made this rather heavy statement.
• In the middle of the 2020 presidential debate, he addressed an armed far-right commando: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” On January 6, 2021, some of them responded to prevent the certification of the vote.
• For the past week, he has continued to attack Haitians legally present in Springfield, even though it has led to bomb threats and shootings. Asian communities also remember the racism they suffered after his “China flu” or Asian flu attacks in 2020.

All of which is to say that Donald Trump is probably the least well-placed politician in the United States to tell his opponents to use less aggressive language. The level of anger in his speeches has completely changed the tone of campaigns since 2016.

This does not justify any acts of violence against him, of course. But it does discredit him as the victim of violent rhetoric.

The danger of this new posture by Trump is that instead of calming things down, as he seemed to want to do in July, he is stepping up the pace by directly blaming his opponents for two extremely serious crimes.

The path from words to incitement to criminal acts is not clear, and so much the better if we stick to words too many.

But in the already tense political and social context, in this country armed to the teeth, this does not bode well.