In the wake of the second attempted assassination of former President Trump, the Republican Presidential candidate for 2024, there have been many voices from both left and right calling for all parties to reduce the temperature of the over-heated rhetoric.
Ironically, in an incomprehensible, some journalists and pundits from the left have insinuated that Trump is to blame for the attempts against his life due to his often boorish and insulting language about his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris. More fairly many of both left and right point out that at times Trump uses the same terms and expressions about the “danger to our liberty” of a Harris presidency that approximates the denunciation of Trump by Democrats as a “danger to our democracy” over the last 9 years.
Sorting out who has used the most offensive rhetoric that may inspire the mentally unstable to acts of violence is not possible. And, it must always be held in mind that the actions of those who attempted to assassinate Mr. Trump are their actions and theirs alone. Yet, one cannot dismiss the impact of a constant stream of declarations that the former President represents a “threat to our democracy”, casting him as an existential threat to our nation. The word choice is crucial, for if a threat is real, you are obliged to eliminate it.
Words matter, and though the perpetrators of the assassination attempts are to blame for their actions, all those engaging in over-heated rhetoric bear indirect responsibility for creating an atmosphere of discord and anxiety. Whether Trump with his declarations that the election of Harris will undermine American freedom and liberty and lead to the end of our great Republic or Biden-Harris with their ongoing depiction of Trump as a “threat to our democracy”, both left and right, Dems and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives, etc. need to stop demonizing their political opponents.
The Golden Rule has been stated in several formulas, but the most commonly accepted one in America is “Do unto others as you have them do unto you.” This must be our starting point for reducing the temperature of overheated rhetoric. And, it starts with each of us that has used overheated rhetoric to henceforth use language about others that is the language we would like used about us.
The man or woman looking back at you from the mirror is the person who must start the process. The Golden Rule starts with you doing to others, not you pointing out what others are to do. Berating others for overheated rhetoric while engaging in it ourselves will not lead to a reduction in the temperature of political discourse. Defending denunciations of a political actor with assertions that he or she is truly a threat, a danger, etc. reflects a high degree of arrogance and a bit of self-delusion - neither candidate is the existential threat the irrational declare.
No rational person can truly believe that the election of Harris would spell the end of freedom in America regardless of her clear affinity for Socialism. Likewise, no rational person can truly believe that Trump’s election would spell the end of democracy in America. In both cases, it is political rhetoric unmoored from reality, a distractor from a thoughtful consideration of the choices we face between the policies that the new President and his or her appointees are likely to pursue. It also dismisses the strength of the American Constitution to safeguard our Democratic Republic with its balancing of legislative, judicial, and executive power between three separate and independent branches of government. Likewise, it ignores the strength of our federal system of dual sovereignties with the limits it imposes on both state and federal officials.
A necessary qualification of the Golden Rule is, “Physician, heal thyself.” If we want the overheated rhetoric to end, then I must stop pointing out the speck in my neighbor’s eye and pay attention to the log in my own. Leadership is from the top, from the front, but also from the middle. Each of us in the midst of our lives must refrain form repeating abusive rhetoric. If we do, there will at least be a chance that others will see us doing what we would like others to do to us and emulate our commitment to reduce the temperature of political rhetoric.