After such a horrific event, the calls for unity and statements like “violence is not the answer” are to be expected. Of course that’s the reasonable response. But this appearance of reason can easily turn into a case of “bothsidesism” in which people conclude “we’re all equally at fault.” That’s when I call “bullshit.” If any side is responsible for fomenting violence in this country over the past decade, it’s the Republicans, by a landslide. To suggest anything else ignores the preponderance of evidence and qualifies as classic projection. And yet, a large portion of our population will continue to say “both sides are equally at fault” — and worse, they’ll believe it.
By the way, will the photojournalists who took the Pulitzer-worthy photos of the defiant and heroic Donald Trump that are now being used to sell t-shirts, coffee mugs, and posters receive a cut of the profits? Just asking on behalf of the “fake-news” photojournalists who were also risking their lives by staying in position just so they could do their jobs.
Barth, I think we need to simply call it as we see it. I was writing about political violence. And if we're inclined to assign the preponderance of blame on one side or the other, then we must look at how we count. For example, in the 60s and 70s, most political violence came from the radical left, but as this Reuter's analysis points out, it was mostly coordinated and "was focused largely on destroying property, such as government buildings." I'd say that counts as political. But what about lynchings? Were they a form of political violence or just right-wing hate? Or throwing a Molotov Cocktail into a Starbucks: political or simple vandalism? Things were relatively quiet in the 80s, then came Oklahoma City and the far right targeted people. In the last decade, I would agree with you. Republican calls for violence (implicit ot explicit) have been louder, led by the hater-in-chief. The crowd turning immediately on journalists was deeply troubling to me as well, as you can imagine. Such are the times we live in. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/
One good related example of what you are talking about is the way Biden and Trump handle incidents of political violence. When Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer, Trump mocked him and his wife. When Trump was shot with an AR, Biden appealed for calm and called Trump to send best wishes.
That's exactly my point, Terry. Please know that I was in no way criticizing your commentary; rather, I was expressing my frustration over the reaction to the assassination attempt as just more of the same rhetoric we see now in these extremely polarized times. Your thoughts about political violence are spot-on, echoed by another article I've read recently (similar to the one you shared):
Your observation about rally attendees turning on the media is not totally in sync with some reporting that I read. CNN reported that a Trump advance man threw himself on top of them, and they expressed their thanks. I wish that type of action had a bit more notice.
I'm not sure if you read Melania Trump's X post, but it was beautiful and powerful. I think she was an underestimated First Lady. Her post was eloquent and to me, struck the right tone.
This incident presents both Republicans and Democrats with choices--they can continue to hatefully target each other, or, as we've heard ad nauseum since yesterday, lower the temperature. Biden's July 8 statement to 'put Trump in a bullseye'? I'm sure he didn't mean a literal bullseye, but it sure looks bad now. Trump is a fascist. He's Hitler. And on the other side, Biden is the worst president in American history. How much can you hear this stuff and not internalize it? I think it might settle down for a while, but this too, shall pass and before you know it, they'll be back to he old mud slinging.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that this will be a watershed event. My gut tells me that it's bought Joe Biden some time and gives him a chance to look presidential. I'm also thinking that damn near becoming a martyr can't be a bad thing for Trump. I'm betting the roof will blow off that arena in Milwaukee on Thursday night. I'm going to watch Nikki Haley (*sigh*--my girl!) on Tuesday night. Not to mention the Republican VP--ABB (anybody but Burgum).
Thanks Sharon. In light of the hostility and threatening demeanor of some of the attendees, I'm glad Trump's advance team protected the journalists. I did not see M. Trump's post but will look for it. How ironic (or perhaps bittersweet) that, given the heated political environment in which we live, we would long for the good old days of honest "mudslinging!"
After such a horrific event, the calls for unity and statements like “violence is not the answer” are to be expected. Of course that’s the reasonable response. But this appearance of reason can easily turn into a case of “bothsidesism” in which people conclude “we’re all equally at fault.” That’s when I call “bullshit.” If any side is responsible for fomenting violence in this country over the past decade, it’s the Republicans, by a landslide. To suggest anything else ignores the preponderance of evidence and qualifies as classic projection. And yet, a large portion of our population will continue to say “both sides are equally at fault” — and worse, they’ll believe it.
By the way, will the photojournalists who took the Pulitzer-worthy photos of the defiant and heroic Donald Trump that are now being used to sell t-shirts, coffee mugs, and posters receive a cut of the profits? Just asking on behalf of the “fake-news” photojournalists who were also risking their lives by staying in position just so they could do their jobs.
Barth, I think we need to simply call it as we see it. I was writing about political violence. And if we're inclined to assign the preponderance of blame on one side or the other, then we must look at how we count. For example, in the 60s and 70s, most political violence came from the radical left, but as this Reuter's analysis points out, it was mostly coordinated and "was focused largely on destroying property, such as government buildings." I'd say that counts as political. But what about lynchings? Were they a form of political violence or just right-wing hate? Or throwing a Molotov Cocktail into a Starbucks: political or simple vandalism? Things were relatively quiet in the 80s, then came Oklahoma City and the far right targeted people. In the last decade, I would agree with you. Republican calls for violence (implicit ot explicit) have been louder, led by the hater-in-chief. The crowd turning immediately on journalists was deeply troubling to me as well, as you can imagine. Such are the times we live in. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/
One good related example of what you are talking about is the way Biden and Trump handle incidents of political violence. When Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer, Trump mocked him and his wife. When Trump was shot with an AR, Biden appealed for calm and called Trump to send best wishes.
That's exactly my point, Terry. Please know that I was in no way criticizing your commentary; rather, I was expressing my frustration over the reaction to the assassination attempt as just more of the same rhetoric we see now in these extremely polarized times. Your thoughts about political violence are spot-on, echoed by another article I've read recently (similar to the one you shared):
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/us-extremism-portland-george-floyd-protests-january-6/673088/
As always, I appreciate your measured assessments of contentious issues. Your level-headed takes are much needed now.
Thanks Barth for reading, and for the link.
Excellent analysis of a disturbing event.
Your observation about rally attendees turning on the media is not totally in sync with some reporting that I read. CNN reported that a Trump advance man threw himself on top of them, and they expressed their thanks. I wish that type of action had a bit more notice.
I'm not sure if you read Melania Trump's X post, but it was beautiful and powerful. I think she was an underestimated First Lady. Her post was eloquent and to me, struck the right tone.
This incident presents both Republicans and Democrats with choices--they can continue to hatefully target each other, or, as we've heard ad nauseum since yesterday, lower the temperature. Biden's July 8 statement to 'put Trump in a bullseye'? I'm sure he didn't mean a literal bullseye, but it sure looks bad now. Trump is a fascist. He's Hitler. And on the other side, Biden is the worst president in American history. How much can you hear this stuff and not internalize it? I think it might settle down for a while, but this too, shall pass and before you know it, they'll be back to he old mud slinging.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that this will be a watershed event. My gut tells me that it's bought Joe Biden some time and gives him a chance to look presidential. I'm also thinking that damn near becoming a martyr can't be a bad thing for Trump. I'm betting the roof will blow off that arena in Milwaukee on Thursday night. I'm going to watch Nikki Haley (*sigh*--my girl!) on Tuesday night. Not to mention the Republican VP--ABB (anybody but Burgum).
Ah--politics!!
Thanks Sharon. In light of the hostility and threatening demeanor of some of the attendees, I'm glad Trump's advance team protected the journalists. I did not see M. Trump's post but will look for it. How ironic (or perhaps bittersweet) that, given the heated political environment in which we live, we would long for the good old days of honest "mudslinging!"
I just read Melania's tweet (link is below). Lots of grace and class there. It would be nice if some if that would rub off on her husband! https://x.com/MELANIATRUMP/status/1812492817068945437