Overheated political rhetoric about overheated political rhetoric

Calls for an elevated political discourse in the wake of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump are welcomed. But don't expect much to change.

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, calls to moderate heated political rhetoric have been widespread.

It would be very good for the country if our political discourse were more elevated and reasoned. And it would markedly improve my quality of life.

About 90% of American political rhetoric is unpersuasive or stupid. Roughly 75% of it is both. It is painful to listen to or read. 

I used to have a professional obligation to pay attention to all of it. If I am to continue with this retirement project of a Substack column, I have to continue to pay at least semi-attention to it.

As beneficial as a more elevated political discourse would be, much more importantly for the country’s political health than my quality of life, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that it will happen. If there is a lull in the vitriol that lasts two weeks, I’ll be shocked.

The duopoly granted the relatively small segment of Republican and Democratic primary voters in choosing general election candidates contributes to the vitriol and vindictiveness. Partisan primary voters like hearing their candidates beat up on the other side. 

Breaking up that duopoly would improve things, by giving candidates uncomfortable with saying stupid and unpersuasive things at least a theoretical path to the general election ballot. And such candidates would have, in most states and particularly in Arizona, a general-election advantage against a partisan firebreather from either side.

However, I don’t know how much of a difference it would make in the end. There appears to be something in the DNA of people attracted to running for elected office that tends toward this kind of overheated rhetoric.

Throughout our history, American political rhetoric has been characterized by demagoguery, demonization of opponents, hyperbole, apocalyptical framing, and martial imagery. The difference is in how ubiquitous it has become.

When Jeffersonians were accusing John Adams of having monarchical ambitions, people encountered it periodically through pamphlets, newspaper fulminations, and political speeches. Today, such vitriol flows incessantly through partisan cable news programming, talk radio, podcasts, and the intellectual cesspool of social media.

I don’t believe that’s going to change or even noticeably abate. After the attempted assassination, Melania Trump issued a poignant statement urging that people remember that candidates, even ones they oppose, are human beings with families and loved ones, and act accordingly. Unfortunately, the American politician who most egregiously and frequently violates that precept is her husband.

Trump says that the close call has changed the message he plans to deliver in his acceptance speech. We’ll see. But if Trump becomes a civil candidate on the stump, giving credit to his opponents for good intentions if flawed ideas, and makes persuasive arguments for his intended policies rather than demagogic incantations, it will be the biggest conversion since Saul’s trip to Damascus. 

The choice of J.D. Vance for VP, however, indicates that Trump will remain Trump. Vance immediately blamed Joe Biden’s rhetoric for the attempt on Trump’s life. 

The calls for an elevated and more civil political discourse are warranted in their own right. However, not so much as a prescribed reaction or preventative measure in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump.

As of this writing, there is little known about the motivation of this particular assassin. However, in general, the relationship between overheated political rhetoric and lone-wolf assassination attempts is tenuous at best.

Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin wanted to impress a movie star. One of Gerald Ford’s would-be assassins, the Manson cultist, somehow thought she was saving the Redwoods from pollution. What causes the mind and soul of a lone-wolf assassin to snap is mostly a human mystery. Attributing the snap to overheated rhetoric of political opponents is overheated rhetoric in its own right.

There might ultimately be a closer connection to mob political violence. I fear eruptions of such regardless of the outcome of this presidential election. It would be helpful if candidates and campaigns were mindful of that threat in the calibration of their political rhetoric and messaging. Helpful, but not expected.

And, in the final analysis, extreme rhetoric by political candidates and campaigns isn’t to blame for acts of political violence, unless such acts are explicitly called for. Blame rests solely on the individuals committing the violent acts. 

There’s a tendency to excuse such acts when committed by those generally on your side. We saw that on the left regarding rioting and looting associated with the George Floyd protests. We saw it on the right regarding the Jan. 6 attempted seizure of the Capitol. It is reasonable to expect our political leaders to uniformly condemn acts of political violence irrespective of their cause or purpose. Perhaps the shock of the attempt on Donald Trump’s life can nudge things in that direction.

I suppose I should welcome a discussion about elevating our political discourse, irrespective of how misaligned its provenance. But I fear, and expect, that it will just become another item in the endless, and largely unproductive, blame game that dominates our unhealthy politics.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.