In a shocking act on July 13, a man attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump will recover from his wound but, tragically, a 50-year-old man attending the rally was shot and killed.
Violence has no place in a democratic political system, and we condemn this despicable act. Yet we must also acknowledge that no one has done more to inject violence into our political discourse than Trump.
He demonizes his political opponents as “animals,” “scum” and “vermin.” He calls for jailing his opponents without cause and forcing them to stand before military tribunals. He speaks of the “bloodbath” that will occur if he loses the election. When a deranged man attempted to murder House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer, Trump mocked the incident as his audience laughed.
[…]
None of this justifies the attempt on his life – or any kind of political violence against anyone. Yet Trump has continually framed American politics as a violent struggle requiring bloodshed. Trump regularly charges up his supporters by using destructive and violent rhetoric.
[…]
Terry Szuplat, a former Obama speechwriter […] offered some thoughtful ideas:
We can stop describing fellow Americans we disagree with as “enemies” who need to be “destroyed” or “crushed.”
We can stop whipping up audiences to “fight” and “take back our country.” Our diverse society of more than 300 million people is not something that any one group owns or can “take” from our neighbors.
We can resist absolutist language like “good” vs. “evil.” Framing complex issues on which reasonable people can disagree in absolutist terms becomes a license to use any means necessary to ensure that “good”—at least as the speaker perceives it—prevails, no matter what the cost.
Don’t otherize. There is no “us” vs. “them.” There’s only “we the people”—Americans who rise and fall together.
Don’t demonize. Just because someone disagrees with us doesn’t make them “dark,” “sinister,” or “wicked.”
Don’t dehumanize. When we refer to other people as “animals” or “vermin,” it can lead to violence against our fellow Americans.”
how does Terry Szuplat feel about using this language against the Nazis themselves? It’s easy to say that disagreement doesn’t make someone evil when the disagreement is about like, pineapple on pizza or something. When the person i’m disagreeing with thinks that people don’t deserve their own bodily autonomy? Or when they are trying to tell me that genocide is okay? Idk man, that sounds like evil thinking to me, but maybe i watched too many Disney movies growing up.
I’m torn about this myself. The tolerance of the intolerant is not really doing anyone any favors. But a subset of the population in North America seems to want to be as intolerant as possible.
It feels like tensions are rising, but I have no idea how you can reduce that without having the rowdy group be less hostile towards everything that moves
I can’t speak for Terry Szuplat, but I would think the same rules apply.
How exactly would calling an anti-abortion extremist a subhuman nazi terrorist help anything at all? It might make them feel more strongly in their beliefs. It might make you look bad, and get more votes for anti-abortion extremist positions. It might normalize the language of dehumanization, furthering aims of authoritarians. MAGA lives on victimhood, making it stronger hardly helps. Listening and being reasonable may be hard, but is more likely to be heard.
Regarding tolerance of the intolerant - I see no incompatibility. Vote to ensure their views don’t win. Outlaw violence. There’s times where civil disobedience is called for. Terry isn’t suggesting just give up and let others run things out of fear of offending someone.
If I may offend you now by including Star Wars as a Disney movie, Luke doesn’t win by killing his father and becoming emperor. That was Vader’s thing. Vader is evil. So is Trump. But I wouldn’t go airing commercials talking about how evil Trump and his vermin followers are unless I was aiming to get Trump elected.