Every decent American is shocked, outraged, and saddened by the July 13 attempted assassination of Donald Trump and the resulting murder of a bystander and wounding of two others. The perpetrator came within maybe an inch of murdering the former president.
Trump’s personal Secret Service detail performed admirably, shielding Trump’s body with their own, as they are employed to do. But the fact that an armed man was able to operate within the scene, crawl up on a nearby roof, and take shots at a former president and leading candidate for president, represents a catastrophic security failure. Video taken from the ground by rally attendees clearly show the perpetrator crawling along the roof in question while attendees warn police officers. The response to the man crawling on the roof should have been immediate and overwhelming, Trump’s security detail should have been immediately alerted, and Trump should have been immediately properly shielded. An armed man never should have been able to get close to the scene in the first place. The lapses here are shocking, and, at a minimum, those responsible should lose their jobs.
Corey Comperatore “died a hero,” diving over his family to protect them from the violence.
As the Secret Service acted to rush Trump off the stage, Trump said, “wait, wait, wait,” repeatedly raised his fist defiantly in the air, and said, “Fight, fight, fight!” This resulted in iconic photographs and video that immediately became part of American history. Justifiable anger over the assassination attempt, combined with Trump’s breathtaking display for the cameras, almost certainly will shift the election in Trump’s direction (whether or not he ultimately prevails). Thankfully there was no second (or third) shooter. Trump apparently assumed the threat was over but had no way to know this, so he was potentially putting his life and the lives of others in danger by pausing. It might look presidential to respond defiantly in the face of flying bullets, but it is in fact presidential to move immediately out of danger. Substance matters more than show.
Sadly but predictably, some supporters of Trump immediately concocted conspiracy rumors either that the Secret Service intentionally put Trump in danger or even that President Joe Biden ordered the murder. (Those who, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, “joked” that Biden would now be free to murder his political opponents did not help.) Some opponents of Trump immediately concocted conspiracy rumors that the assassination attempt was staged. This was comparable to people such as Alex Jones claiming that various school shootings were staged or “false flag” operations.
Also sadly but predictably, some supporters of Trump immediately claimed that Joe Biden’s rhetoric critical of Trump was partly responsible for the assassination attempt. Biden has not, in fact, ever incited or advocated violence against Trump. The attempt to blur the distinction between passionate criticism of a politician in the context of electoral politics and incitements to violence, if successful, will put the nation directly on the path to dictatorship. A clear sign of dictatorship is when political leaders may silence critics on the pretext that the criticism is somehow dangerous or the equivalent of violence. And here I thought that only the most deranged leftists pretended that words are violence for the purpose of silencing critics.
True, Biden unwisely said, “It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” Biden was wrong to use that loaded phrase. Still, obviously, Biden was using the phrase metaphorically and in the context of trying to “beat Donald Trump” in the upcoming election. Only those willfully making themselves stupid can pretend that Biden was talking about a literal bullseye. It’s not worth my time to Google examples of Republicans who have used comparable language.
Trump’s Indirect Incitements to Violence
Republicans who claim that Biden somehow incited violence against Trump are transparently attempting to deflect attention away from the fact that Trump obviously has actually incited violence, indirectly, on numerous occasions.
Here I must pause to distinguish direct versus indirect incitement to violence. Only direct incitement, properly, is legally actionable. Obviously asking people to commit violent crimes is illegal. Although the boundaries can be hard to precisely define, roughly incitement to violence is illegal when it involves a direct threat against specific persons. So, if someone says, “Let’s go down to the jailhouse and lynch the accused,” that’s illegal. If someone says, “Let’s go into this bar and bust some heads,” that’s illegal. But indirect incitements to violence, although legal, are morally condemnable, and decent people condemn them.
Indirect incitement to violence can be more or less indirect. For example, if someone posts online a generic statement, “People should take up arms against [ethnic group X],” that’s protected (although horrible) speech. But if someone says, “People should kill all [people from ethnic group X], when in the midst of angry racists and members of that group, that’s illegal incitement. So context matters. If someone spreads vicious conspiracy theories about the ethnic group in question, without directly calling for violence, that can still count as indirect incitement to violence. For example, when Trump said that certain immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump knew that his obviously racist remark could provoke various people in our society to wish violence upon those immigrants and possibly to pursue such violence. When in 2020 Trump urged the openly fascist Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” because “somebody has to do something about Antifa and the left,” that was an indirect incitement to violence. When recently Trump “posted a video that featured an image of President Joe Biden tied up in the back of a pickup truck,” as CNN reported, that was an indirect incitement to violence.
Trump indirectly incited the violence of January 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump violently assaulted the United States Capitol building with the intention of blocking the certification of the election. After spending months spreading conspiracy theories that he knew to be false about the election, Trump encouraged his followers to amass near the Capitol on January 6, then he egged them on during his speech. Trump said, “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about.” He urged his supporters to “save our democracy” and “stop the steal.” He again lied repeatedly about winning the election. Trump said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He urged his supporters to walk to the Capitol.
Trump did invoke the term “peacefully” during his speech. The January 6 report puts this in context:
President Trump used the phrase scripted for him by his White House speechwriters, “peacefully and patriotically” once, about 20 minutes into his speech. Then he spent the next 50-or-so minutes amping up his crowd with lies about the election, attacking his own Vice President and Republican Members of Congress, and exhorting the crowd to fight. “And we fight. We fight like hell” the President said to a crowd that had already spent the day chanting, “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!,” and that would keep up the chorus when storming the Capitol.
Some of Trump’s supporters took Trump to be encouraging them to violence, and in response they acted violently. They said things including the following: “There’s enough people here to storm the Capitol.” “You’re going to die” (to police officers). “Freedom is paid for with blood.” “We’re gonna go fuck some shit up.” “If Pence caved, we’re gonna drag motherfuckers through the streets.” “Cut their heads off!”
Rather than immediately and forcefully call off the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol, Trump only reluctantly and belatedly did so. The Washington Post reported:
[A]s senators and House members trapped inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday begged for immediate help during the siege, they struggled to get through to the president, who — safely ensconced in the West Wing — was too busy watching fiery TV images of the crisis unfolding around them to act or even bother to hear their pleas. . . .
Trump did not move to act. And the message from those around him—that he needed to call off the angry mob he had egged on just hours earlier, or lives could be lost—was one to which he was not initially receptive. . . . Trump ultimately—and begrudgingly—urged his supporters to “go home in peace.”
Other Examples of Indirect Incitements to Violence
The day before the assassination attempt, Colorado conservative activist Joe Oltmann, with whom various regional Republican politicians have rubbed elbows, publicly said, “I’ve got news for you. They’re going to steal the election in November. Let’s go get our guns; we have to have a target. The time is coming when good people will have to do bad things to bad people. There’s a sacrifice to be made.” Oltmann’s remarks are an indirect incitement to violence. Oltmann’s remarks (probably) are not illegal, but every decent person (this notably does not include various elected Colorado Republicans) morally condemns Oltmann and his violent rhetoric.
Oltmann also has “joked” that the Democratic governor of Colorado should be executed.
Another example: Recently the Republican Party of Colorado publicly urged people to “burn all the [gay] Pride flags.” In fact, in the aftermath of this remark, some criminals stole people’s Pride flags. The state GOP’s remark is legally protected speech, and it is also an indirect incitement to violence and is morally despicable.
Responsible and Irresponsible Reactions to the Assassination Attempt
Here I will focus on my home state of Colorado. Most politicians from both major parties issued responsible remarks following the assassination attempt. For example, Rep. Jason Crow said, “Violence has no place in our democracy. Period. My thoughts are with former President Trump and all those impacted.”
Not everyone was as responsible. State Rep. Steven Woodrow Tweeted, “The last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil but here we are.” Facing criticism, Woodrow deleted his account and apologized. Shad Murib, chair of the state Democratic Party, publicly condemned Woodrow’s remark.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert said, “Joe Biden is responsible for the shooting.”
State Rep. Matt Soper, also a Republican, was even more explicit:
I agree with Congresswoman Boebert! The blood of the dead and wounded, including that of Pres. Trump, is on Biden’s hands! He is not fit for the office of the presidency and should be prosecuted for criminal incitement of violence and solicitation of murder.
Boebert and Soper echo the remarks of J. D. Vance, now Trump’s running mate:
Today is not just some isolated incident. 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.
Boebert, Soper, and Vance are lying, and they know they are lying. They did not offer any examples of Biden inciting violence against Trump, because Biden has not, in fact, ever incited violence against Trump, directly or indirectly. (Boebert mentions the “bullseye” remark, ignoring its obvious context. If Boebert, who recently had a campaign event scheduled at Otlmann’s gun shop, has ever condemned Oltmann’s obviously violent rhetoric, I am not aware of it.)
What is an indirect incitement of violence, against Biden, is Trump showing violent imagery of Biden bound in the back of a truck, in the aftermath of January 6, when supporters of Trump in fact violently assaulted dozens of police officers. What is indirect incitement of violence is falsely claiming that Biden has blood on his hands for criticizing Trump and calling for his electoral defeat.
The facts matter. Trump, in fact, indirectly incited his supporters to violence on January 6. Biden did not, in fact, ever directly or indirectly incite violence against Trump (despite his stupid use of the phrase “bullseye”). Boebert, Soper, and Vance are, in fact, intentionally ginning up irrational hatred of Biden based on fabricated claims of incitement to violence, which they know or reasonably should know might encourage some opponents of Biden to pursue violence against him. They are doing precisely what they falsely accuse Biden of doing.
Some will accuse me of having a double standard. No. My standard is the facts. If we attend to the relevant facts, we can accurately distinguish direct (and legally actionable) incitements to violence from indirect (and hence not legally actionable yet morally condemnable) incitements to violence (admitting some fuzzy boundaries). We can distinguish between fact-based criticisms and conspiracy-mongering. And we can distinguish between moral condemnations of indirect incitements to violence and the intentional provocation of irrational hatred of some political target. It is no secret that I do not like Trump, Vance, or Boebert, and therefore I wish for them to be defeated at the ballot box and to go and live their lives in peace. That is a lot different attitude from stoking fantasies, as Trump did, that Biden ends up bound and gagged in the back of a pickup truck. And if you cannot see the difference it is because you are trying hard not to see it.
The cry to cast reasonable criticism of a politician as incitement to violence, or to cast reasonable or unreasonable criticism as actionable either by government or a mob, is the cry for dictatorship.
