Democrats Encouraged Violence and Got It Twice
– By Howard Sierer –
Pres. Biden, Vice Pres. Harris and far too many voices in what historically had been the responsible media have spent years whipping the left into a violent frenzy over Trump. The tenor of their rhetoric leaves little doubt as to how two “crazies” could believe they were acting in the national interest when they attempted to assassinate him.
Democrats wave off any connection or responsibility. But the connection is all too apparent by looking back at how they have inflamed the nation’s politics with their scalding rhetoric.
Biden in his infamous Red Wedding speech in Philadelphia two years ago, declared Trump and MAGA Republicans were threats to democracy. He has used that dangerous rhetoric ever since, repeating versions of it and expanding on the supposed threat nearly every week.
For example on June 28 this year, the president posted on X that Trump is “a genuine threat to this nation. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for.” In an over-the-top call with donors in July, he said it’s “time to put Trump in the bullseye.” Two would-be assassins took that literally.
Vice President Harris warned that Trump would be a dictator, weaponize the Justice Department against his political opponents, and destroy the Constitution. She should know: those are exactly the things she and Biden have been doing for the last three years.
Previously-responsible leftist media have been pushing what Mollie Hemingway called assassination prep: nonstop comparisons of Trump to Hitler, incessant warnings that if Trump isn’t stopped it will mean the end of democracy in America, and mantra-like repetition that a Trump victory in November means the gulag for every leftist identity group.
The June issue of The New Republic magazine explicitly compared Trump to Hitler, morphing his picture on the cover into a semblance of Hitler. That issue contains multiple essays about how grim life will be under Dictator Trump. The editors justified this by saying, “Today, we at The New Republic think we can spend this election year in one of two ways. We can spend it debating whether Trump meets the nine or 17 points that define fascism. Or we can spend it saying, ‘He’s damn close enough, and we’d better fight.’”
The Atlantic magazine recently titled an entire issue “If Trump Wins,” featuring dozens of articles outlining all the ways Trump will destroy America if he wins a second term. Top of the list is a piece by David Frum on autocracy under Trump, followed by other authors on misogyny, corruption, extremism, and so on.
Following the first assassination attempt, Frum posted a rant blaming Trump for his own attempted assassination, declaring that “the gunman and Trump, at their opposite ends of a bullet’s trajectory, are nonetheless joined together as common enemies of law and democracy.”
Amazingly, a bill proposed this spring by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson would have stripped Trump of Secret Service protection. To most of us, that looks like a deliberate attempt to make it as likely as possible that an attack on Trump’s life would happen — and succeed.
Following each assassination attempt, Democrats expressed their usual platitudes to “take down the temperature” and “unite.” But they had long since fired up the political blast furnace to peak temperature by months of fiery rhetoric. Sprinkling it with a few watering cans now will have little effect.
Harris condemned the most recent assassination attempt in a statement issued by the White House: “We all must do our part to ensure that this incident does not lead to more to violence.” A good start in this direction would be for Democrats and the media to renounce their past violent rhetoric whose effect has been to encourage the worst, most unstable elements in the country to carry out political terrorism.
Trump has continued his pattern of random, ill-considered and often untruthful comments and is no model of responsible campaigning. But if anything positive can be said for him, at least he hasn’t called for “putting Biden in the bullseye” or likened him to Communist China’s brutal Mao Tse-tung who killed millions.
With even a modest amount of common sense, Biden, Harris and the leftist media could have foreseen the consequences of painting Trump as the devil incarnate, as bad as Hitler and a personal threat to all Americans. Whether one supports Trump or opposes him, I urge all Americans to do so with a sense of decency and common courtesy.
Well Howard, you’ve finally done. I have rarely agreed with you but I regularly read your Sonday columns and thought I’d finally found a responsible conservative who sort of wrote thoughtful and considered thoughts, to which I frequently responded. Then you produced the blithering nonsense on 9/22/24 about how Biden and Harris were responsible for the attacks on Trump, that their violent vitriol inspired the attackers. I’ve never read such a collection of absolute crap! Listen to the spew of your own candidate! Has he ever encouraged violence? Now read the oppositional rhetoric. Lots of criticism but no violence. Figure it out, sir, Trump is a threat to America! For hell sakes, listen to what he says. He is a threat to democracy! He’s dangerous to us all! Get real, Howard! I’m sorry to discover your shallow beliefs. It’s a real disappointment! I’m through here.
Re: “Trump is a threat to America!”
How, specifically is he “a threat to America?”
Re: “He is a threat to democracy!”
How, specifically is he “a threat to democracy?”
Re: “He’s dangerous to us all”
How, specifically is he “dangerous to us all?”
Waah wa Waah wawa. (translated “blah”) – quoteth de la maestra de Charlie cafe… JC is in his/her echo chamber and illustrates the perfect example that exists (in REAL time) on both sides of the GREAT DIVIDE ~ NEITHER process, let alone analyze, or for that matter listen to each other. Within nanoseconds it becomes an emotional response with some kind of sophmoric retaliation… Now, JC does have some tact and does not resort to nasty or crude language – so like Howard, we can assume he/she is a gentleman and a scholar – to use the cliche ignoring rules of gender. To this person, former President Trump is a clear threat to Democracy. On the other side of the equation is the opposite paradigm or beleif that he will save the Country. WHO IS RIGHT? WHO IS WRONG? WHO IS LEFT? Who is left – in the middle – and maybe right… Mr Nobody of course. Do not shoot the messenger – Marshall McLuhan casual viewing head buried in the sand… peace out.
In my view Trump is two different people. There is Trump the man and Trump the chief executive. Trump the man is an unapologetic, vindictive, petty, self-centered narcissist and it’s probably what enables him to endure the unrelenting attacks he receives from every source imaginable and his so-called lies are mostly about confusing his desired goals with reality.
On the other hand, Trump the chief executive was an outstanding president who, when it came to policies, said what he meant, meant what he said, did what he said and followed through when possible to produce outstanding results which is a new concept in American politics.
Also, Trump the man – at least by all indications so far – only went openly after individual adversaries with nasty words like any other powerless commoner on the street with a similar temperament would do – and – unlike Presidents Obama and to some extent, Biden – did not appear to use the power of the presidency to silently go after them with government agencies like the FBI, IRS, Justice Department or Intelligence community.
The bottom line is as long as President Trump kept the “man” separated from the powers of the “chief executive” I didn’t care what he said (at least it was unfiltered and honest and hadn’t been scripted by an army of pundits, advisors, speechwriters and focus groups) but I did care what he did and I thought he did a great job.
And in position of power, I would rather have someone addicted to him/herself rather than to power, as those who seek power seem to have the least compunction about using it
Mr. Smith – very interesting analysis… You lend credibility to both sides of the equation. I would sum it up this way. Those who extremely dislike former President Trump are triggered by his character flaws – especially their perception of his public persona – which is a complete turn-off for some, especially in regards to Presidential conduct which in their minds should reflect a certain level of emotional intelligence and dignity. With that being said he does often use repetitive insults and does stoop ro almost any level in regards to getting into the fray with opposing parties. With that being said – his proponents either approve and cheer his political street fighting tactics, or look the other way accepting it as part of his emotional character (the Don being the Don etc…) – so be it…, or cringe and put up with it in lieu of his Presidential performance and policy initiatives… Without getting into the Democratic side to far, which has it own flaws and inherent problems as well – especially a lack of competency as well as .major policy failures of enormous consequence, There is no doubt the GREAT DIVIDE will continue after the election. Essentially the strength of the Dems is not their candidate or proposed policies, rather it is to emphasize distrust of all things Trump and register with voters that he is unacceptable to be President – and with Jan 6 in tow, an emphasis on him being a threat to Democracy as well. It all makes sense and my summation should be equally disliked by both sides as intended. No further foolish comments as the Court Jester must pull his stickle back and return to his cave in the Himalayas. Sadly we have had two assassination attempts, and let’s also note that such incidents are a threat to Democracy as well. America will survive this election but no doubt emotions are high. However let’s not forget WE ARE ALL AMERICANS – and we may be in a foxhole together in the near future. Good luck