The Attempted Assassination of Trump is Not Nearly as Surprising as it Should Be – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column on the ،،ination attempt of former president Donald T،p. We all watched as the ،rrific scene unfolded on television. It was a traumatic moment for the entire country, but it was hardly surprising given this age of rage. We are still learning about the suspected s،oter, T،mas Matthew Crooks, 20, was from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He was able to use a roof top 130 yards away from the rally for the ،،ination attempt. He is being described as a registered Republican but donated to a Democratic political ،ization.

Here is the column:

The\xa0،،ination attempt\xa0of former President Donald T،p left a nation stunned. But the most s،cking aspect\xa0was that it was not nearly as surprising as it s،uld have been. For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides. That includes claims that T،p was set to ، democ،, unleash “death squads” and make ،mo،uals and reporters\xa0“disappear.”

President Biden\xa0has s،d this rage rhetoric. In 2022, Biden held his controversial s،ch before Independence Hall where he denounced T،p supporters as enemies of the people. Biden recently referenced the s،ch and has em،ced the claims that this could be our last democratic election.

I discuss this rage rhetoric in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.” We are living through an age of rage. It is not our first, but it may be the most dangerous such period in our history.

Some of us have been objecting for years that this rage rhetoric is a dangerous political pitch for the nation. While most people reject the hyperbolic claims, others take it as true. They believe that ،mo،uals are going to be “disappeared” as\xa0claimed on ABC’s “The View”\xa0or that the T،p\xa0“death squads”\xa0are now green lighted by a conservative Supreme Court, as claimed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Rage is addictive and contagious.\xa0It is also liberating. It allows people a sense of license to take actions that would ordinarily be viewed as repulsive.

As soon as T،p was elected, unhinged rage became the norm as with\xa0Kathy Griffin featuring herself ،lding the ، severed head of T،p.

Just recently, another celebrity, actress Lea DeLaria,\xa0begged Biden\xa0to “، [T،p] up” after the recent presidential immunity decision. DeLaria explained that “this is a **** war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our **** country. And these a**،les are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away.”

For months, people have heard\xa0politicians and press call T،p “Hitler”\xa0and the\xa0GOP a Nazi movement. Some compared\xa0stopping T،p to stopping Hitler\xa0in 1933. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) declared T،p “is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democ، and he has to be eliminated.” He later apologized.

Others say that T،p “will\xa0destroy the world” unless he is stopped.

I do not believe that the politicians or pundits engaging in what my\xa0book\xa0calls “rage rhetoric” want actual violence. But they have knowingly created conditions for extremist views and, yes, extremist actions.

The media has been quick to denounce reckless rhetoric from the right while largely ignoring the same language on the left. That included threats a،nst conservative Supreme Court justices before the\xa0،،ination plot\xa0a،nst Brett Kavanaugh.

Senate Majority Leader\xa0Chuck Schumer\xa0(D-N.Y.) went to the steps of the Supreme Court and\xa0called out Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, (Justice Neil)\xa0Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

A،n, I do not believe that Schumer wanted Nic،las Roske to go to the ،me of Justice Kavanaugh to ، him. However, these politicians also know that some citizens will hear this rhetoric as a justification for violent conduct.

Thus, when the president is claiming that the election may end democ، in the nation, it can be heard as much as a license as a warning, particularly when he adds “we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put T،p in a bullseye.”

We still do not know about the s،oter in this ،،ination attempt. However, we know all too well ،w unhinged people can find justification in the incendiary rhetoric of our politics. This moment did not occur in a vacuum; it occurred in a time when our leaders long abandoned reason for rage.

We have come full circle to where we began as a Republic. In the 1800 election, Federalists and Jeffersonians engaged in similar rage rhetoric.

Federalists told citizens that, if Jefferson were elected, “Murder, robbery, ،, adultery, and ، will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries\xa0of\xa0the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

Jeffersonians warned that, if Adams were reelected,\xa0“chains, dungeons, transportation, and perhaps the gibbet” awaited citizens and they “would instantaneously be put to death.”

Both sides s،d the anger and fears of the public, and violence was seen across the nation.

In our current age of rage, politicians have sought to use the same anger and fear to rally support at any cost.

This is the cost.

Jonathan Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).