Democrats’ Rhetoric & the Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump: An Examination of Incendiary Language and Its Consequence

Democrats’ Rhetoric & the Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump: An Examination of Incendiary Language and Its Consequences

Edited by: Fern Sidman

In a stunning and alarming development, the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has cast a harsh light on the political rhetoric that has permeated American discourse. According to a report that appeared on Sunday in The New York Post, the incident, which left Trump injured and resulted in the tragic death of a rally attendee and critical injuries to two others, has ignited a fierce debate over the impact of charged political language.

For years, Democrats and Trump’s political opponents have employed highly charged language in response to his often controversial statements and actions. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler and references to Nazi Germany have not been uncommon in the political discourse surrounding Trump. As was reported by The Post, terms such as “dictator” have been used liberally, painting a picture of Trump as a malevolent force intent on dismantling American democracy.

This rhetoric reached a critical point following the assassination attempt, with Republicans rightfully pointing fingers at their political counterparts. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a prominent figure aiming to succeed Senator Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, voiced strong accusations on the social media platform X. “Democrats and liberals in the media have called Trump a fascist. They’ve compared him to Hitler. This isn’t some unfortunate incident, this was an assassination attempt by a madman inspired by the rhetoric of the radical left,” Scott asserted, according to The Post report.

The assassination attempt has magnified the scrutiny on specific statements made by influential Democratic figures. President Joe Biden’s remark on a private call with Democratic donors, reported by Politico, that it’s “time to put Trump in a bullseye,” has taken on a new, unsettling significance, as per the information provided in The Post report. The phrasing, while likely intended as a metaphor for political targeting, now appears ominously prescient in light of recent events.

Similarly, comments made by New York Democratic Representative Dan Goldman during a November interview with former White House press secretary Jen Psaki on MSNBC have come under renewed examination. According to the information contained in The Post report, in the interview, Goldman stated that Trump should be “eliminated” for his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. “It is just unquestionable at this point that man cannot see public office again. He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be eliminated,” Goldman declared, as was indicated in The Post report.  Although he later clarified his remarks on X, emphasizing that he does not condone political violence, the damage was arguably already done.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): Trump “has to be eliminated.”@danielsgoldman needs to resign from Congress or be expelled immediately.

His violent rhetoric has no place in our government.pic.twitter.com/IlG2o1TUK9

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) July 14, 2024

Comparisons between Trump and Adolf Hitler have become a recurrent theme among his critics, including high-profile figures and official accounts within the Democratic Party. Noted in The Post report was that this trend, which has intensified over time, raises significant concerns about the impact of such incendiary language on the political climate and public perception.

In December, the official Biden-Harris headquarters account on X (formerly known as Twitter) posted a provocative message under the heading “Trump Parrots Hitler.” This post featured a series of images juxtaposing Trump’s and Hitler’s faces alongside quotes that the campaign alleged were similar, as observed by The Post. This striking comparison drew immediate attention and criticism, highlighting the extreme measures some political factions are willing to take to discredit their opponents.

This is not a coincidence pic.twitter.com/oaSDcb0yzs

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) December 20, 2023

Within the Biden administration, this rhetoric seemed to permeate the culture. Reports indicate that young staffers, including aides to President Biden, have referred to Trump as “Hitler Pig” in private conversations. The Post report suggested that such casual comparisons to one of history’s most notorious figures underscore a troubling trend of dehumanizing political adversaries through extreme analogies.

The use of Hitler comparisons extends beyond campaign accounts and private conversations. In March, Representative Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) faced severe backlash from Republicans after he likened Hispanic Trump supporters to Jews supporting Hitler. “The rhetoric you hear from the Republican Party is shameful and disgraceful for Latinos. And you know, when you see ‘Latinos for Trump,’ to me it is like seeing ‘Jews for Hitler,’ almost, you know?” Gonzalez remarked, as was affirmed in The Post report. This statement not only inflamed partisan tensions but also drew criticism for its insensitivity and historical inaccuracy.

DISGRACEFUL: Texas Democrat Rep. Vicente Gonzalez compares “Latinos for Trump” to “Jews for Hitler.” pic.twitter.com/HiNxIMhGJf

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 14, 2024

Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 presidential rival, added to this narrative during a November appearance on “The View.” Clinton warned that a 2024 Trump victory could spell the end of the country as it currently exists, drawing a direct parallel to Hitler’s rise to power. The Post reported that she said,“Hitler was duly elected. All of a sudden somebody with those tendencies, dictatorial, authoritarian tendencies, would be like ‘OK we’re gonna shut this down, we’re gonna throw these people in jail.’ And they didn’t usually telegraph that. Trump is telling us what he intends to do,” she cautioned, urging the public to take Trump’s statements seriously.

Hillary Clinton comparing Trump to Hitler on The View is just one reason this happened to President Trump today. pic.twitter.com/EttKEWmtjg

— 3sidedstory 🇺🇲 (@3sidedstory) July 14, 2024

The comparison of Trump to Hitler and other totalitarian dictators is not a new phenomenon. Such analogies have been made since Trump’s first term, reflecting a deep-seated fear among his opponents about the potential consequences of his policies and rhetoric, as per The Post report. However, these comparisons also raise significant ethical and historical concerns. Equating contemporary political figures with those responsible for some of history’s greatest atrocities risks trivializing the unique horrors of those regimes and can contribute to a toxic and polarized political environment.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn claims US is on track to repeat what happened in Germany in the 1930’s, blames president Trump. pic.twitter.com/2lUgk3Mmfp

— Charles Weber (@CWBOCA) November 4, 2022

In 2019, Representatives James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) drew parallels between Trump’s immigration rhetoric and the propaganda used by Adolf Hitler. During a New York City town hall, Nadler criticized Trump’s harsh immigration policies by invoking Hitler’s tactics. “You’ve heard the President and the administration say that immigrants are thieves, that they bring in drugs, that they’re responsible for lots of crime, that they’re a crisis at our border, they’re bringing in drugs and crime,” Nadler stated, as was reported by The Post. He warned that such rhetoric mirrors the discrediting of institutions that enabled Hitler’s rise to power.

“He is a dictator. This must not stand, and that is … another reason he must be removed from office.” House manager Jerry Nadler gave some of the most fiery language that’s been heard so far directed at President Trump during the Senate impeachment trial https://t.co/D1iiMxFxfr pic.twitter.com/udvlJj0kgG

— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) January 24, 2020

Clyburn echoed Nadler’s sentiments in an NBC interview, cautioning against the dangers of Trump’s rhetoric. “Adolf Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany. And he went about the business of discrediting institutions to the point that people bought into it,” Clyburn said, The Post report said. He further emphasized the historical parallels by referencing how swastikas were displayed in churches throughout Germany, urging Americans to be vigilant against similar propaganda.

In June 2019, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) sparked outrage with her comments on the Trump administration’s immigration policies. She accused the administration of running “concentration camps” on the U.S.-Mexico border, drawing a direct parallel to the Holocaust. The Post report noted that Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the term “never again,” a phrase closely associated with Holocaust remembrance, further intensified the backlash.

Ocasio-Cortez falsely claims Trump is operating concentration camps, compares the situation to the Holocaust: “The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border and that is exactly what they are. … ‘Never Again’ means something … we need to do something about it” pic.twitter.com/F2MmZ8y2dT

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 18, 2019

Critics have argued that such comparisons were historically inaccurate and trivialized the atrocities of the Holocaust. The backlash called attention to the sensitivity and potential harm of using Holocaust-related language in contemporary political debates.

Ocasio-Cortez has also  been at the center of controversy for her use of strong language to criticize the Trump administration. The Post report said that in a Q&A session posted on the Instagram page of PoliticsNowadays, she defended her choice of words. “I don’t use those words lightly. I don’t use those words to just throw bombs,” she explained. “I use the word because that’s what an administration that creates concentration camps is. A presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist and it’s very difficult to say that.”

The frequent invocation of Holocaust and Nazi Germany analogies in political discourse raises significant ethical and historical concerns. Comparing modern political figures and policies to one of history’s greatest atrocities can risk trivializing the unique horrors of the Holocaust and undermining the gravity of such comparisons.

These comparisons also contribute to a highly polarized and hostile political environment. By equating political opponents with figures like Hitler, the discourse shifts from policy critique to moral condemnation, making constructive dialogue and compromise increasingly difficult. The use of such extreme rhetoric can desensitize the public to genuine instances of authoritarianism and diminish the impact of historical education about the Holocaust.

Moreover, the media’s role in amplifying these comparisons cannot be overlooked. Sensational headlines and provocative statements attract attention and viewership, but they also contribute to a cycle of outrage and polarization. Media outlets must balance their responsibility to inform the public with the need to provide nuanced and accurate coverage of political issues.

In the wake of the deadly shooting, Republican members of Congress pointed to instances of extreme rhetoric from Democratic leaders as contributing factors. Representative Mike Collins (R-Ga.) called for legal action against President Joe Biden, accusing him of inciting the assassination attempt. “The Republican District Attorney in Butler County, PA, should immediately file charges against Joseph R. Biden for inciting an assassination,” Collins wrote in a widely viewed post on X (formerly Twitter), as was reported by The Post.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), himself a survivor of a politically motivated shooting, linked the incident directly to the “incendiary rhetoric” from the political left. “For weeks Democrat leaders have been fueling ludicrous hysteria that Donald Trump winning re-election would be the end of democracy in America,” Scalise stated, as was noted in The Post report. “Clearly we’ve seen far left lunatics act on violent rhetoric in the past. This incendiary rhetoric must stop.”

Rep. Steve Scalise, shooting survivor, targets ‘incendiary rhetoric’ from left after Trump shootinghttps://t.co/rEmQBa0VCW pic.twitter.com/QJIuoJTrlo

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) July 14, 2024

Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio), a potential vice-presidential candidate for Trump, also criticized the Biden campaign for its use of extreme language. “Today is not some isolated incident,” Vance wrote on X. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

The repeated use of extreme comparisons and inflammatory language has significant implications for political discourse and public safety. When political opponents are depicted not just as adversaries but as existential threats, it can create an environment where violence is seen as a justifiable response. The attempted assassination of Trump is a stark reminder of the potential real-world consequences of such rhetoric.

In light of these events, there is an urgent need for a reassessment of political language. Leaders and commentators must recognize the power of their words and strive to avoid rhetoric that can incite violence or deepen divisions. This involves focusing critiques on policy specifics and the impacts of actions rather than resorting to hyperbolic analogies that can inflame passions.

Promoting historical literacy and a deeper understanding of the events such as the Holocaust is also essential. This knowledge can help prevent the trivialization of historical atrocities and encourage more thoughtful and informed political discourse.

In examining the broader implications, it is crucial to acknowledge the role of media in amplifying these divisive statements. Media outlets, in their pursuit of sensational headlines and increased viewership, have often provided a platform for extreme rhetoric, further fueling the polarization. The responsibility of media in moderating the discourse and providing balanced perspectives is more critical than ever.

As the nation grapples with the fallout from this assassination attempt on the life of Donald Trump, there is a pressing need for a recalibration of political discourse. Political leaders and media personalities alike must recognize the power of their words and the potential impact on their audience. The path forward requires a commitment to more measured and responsible rhetoric, fostering a political environment that encourages constructive dialogue rather than inciting violence.

The tragic events surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump should serve as a wake-up call for all involved in the political process. The stakes are too high, and the potential for further violence too great, to continue down the current path of inflammatory rhetoric. It is a time for reflection, responsibility, and, most importantly, a return to civility in political discourse.