From words to deeds Does heated rhetoric in US politics lead to more violence?
Following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, aggressive language in US politics is being discussed as a possible reason for the attack. Did the harsh tone of the election campaign contribute to the shooting of the ex-president?
17.07.2024, 04:30
dpa
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- Curd Knüpfer, an expert in political communication, warns against seeing political rhetoric as the sole trigger for the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but emphasizes its influence on violence.
- The expert believes that the responsibility for changing political rhetoric lies with the political elites and financial supporters of the parties.
- In view of current trends such as polarization and dehumanization, Knüpfer is pessimistic that the situation will improve in the near future.
An assassination attempt was made on former US President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a Republican campaign event. Did the aggressive rhetoric in US politics influence the crime?
Curd Knüpfer, an expert on political communication and media systems in North America at the Free University of Berlin, explains on SRF that the words of politicians can indeed lead to violence. Nevertheless, in the current case, one must be careful with such statements.
Although there is a heated political climate in the USA, the act of an individual cannot be attributed solely to the harsh tone in US politics. As things stand today, too little is known about the attacker's motives, and various factors could contribute to such an act:
Various factors influence acts of violence
- Previous acts of violence increase the likelihood of violence occurring again.
- Strong polarization creates tensions by creating a strong sense of "us" and "them", a sense of "outgrouping".
- If certain groups of people are portrayed as less valuable, the risk of violence increases. Example: labeling the group as "vermin" or other animals.
- Opportunistic politicians who use polarizing language to attract attention or test the system with politically incorrect terms also contribute to the danger.
- The reaction of the political apparatus to violent language also plays a role. Tolerance on the part of political leaders or institutions increases the risk.
- The political rhetoric of politicians can influence public opinion and increase or decrease social tensions.
Following the assassination attempt on Trump at the weekend, US President Joe Biden warned against further violence in a rare address to the nation from the Oval Office in the White House. He called on Americans to pull together.
"We resolve our differences at the ballot box. That's how we do it - at the ballot box, not with bullets." The political debate in the country has become very heated, he said. "It's time to cool it down," Biden warned. "We all have a responsibility to do that."
According to political scientist Knüpfer, there is an asymmetrical polarization in the USA, which emanates primarily from the Republican Party and its media supporters such as Fox News. Donald Trump and his supporters have moved away from respectful political discourse.
"People used to have respect"
Examples of this include calls for violence, calling political opponents vermin or even mocking Nancy Pelosi after an attack on her husband. Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer during a burglary and suffered a fractured skull. This was followed by cynical comments from individual Republican MPs.
"This leaves a rhetorical level that was still known in the nineties and noughties. There was respect for the other side," says Knüpfer.
The way politicians express themselves publicly is one of several pieces of the puzzle that can lead to political violence. Usually, rhetoric leads to violence by groups rather than individuals.
Increase in politically motivated acts of violence
Despite his recent appeals for cohesion in the country and moderation in the election campaign, US President Joe Biden accuses his political opponent Donald Trump of incendiary rhetoric. Trump is talking about a bloodbath if he loses, Biden said in an interview with US television station NBC.
Trump also announced that he wanted to suspend the sentences of all those convicted of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump's supporters had violently stormed the seat of parliament at the time.
Curd Knüpfer sees the assassination attempt on Trump as a symptom of a larger problem: the increase in politically motivated acts of violence. Such acts are also increasingly directed against democratic politicians and manifest themselves in the form of threats and hate comments. "There are many factors at work."
Biden: "It was a mistake"
The political scientist also mentions changes in the media apparatus and the political landscape of the Republican Party: "It doesn't punish Trump, it lets him get away with it."
Biden argued on NBC that Trump's rhetoric is fueling the debate in the election campaign, not his. "I'm not the man who said I want to be a dictator on day one. I'm not the man who refused to accept the results of the election. I'm not the man who said he will not automatically accept the results of this election," the Democrat said, referring to comments made by the former president and current Republican presidential candidate. He does not use such rhetoric, his opponent does, the 81-year-old emphasized.
NBC: Interview with President Joe Biden in the White House
However, Biden admitted in the NBC interview that it had been a mistake to say it was "time to target Trump". Biden made these remarks during a July 8 conversation with donors, when he said, "It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
"It was a mistake to use that word," Biden said. "I meant focus on him. Focus on what he's doing. Focus on his policies, focus on the number of lies he told in the debate."
Knüpfer is pessimistic
To change political rhetoric, political leaders would have to take responsibility. Political scientist Curd Knüpfer suggests that candidates with radical rhetoric should fail in the election campaign. Or that financial supporters of the parties promote moderate language.
However, Knüpfer is pessimistic in view of developments to date: "We have seen an increase in this rhetoric and relatively little finger-pointing in recent years."
Curd Knüpfer sees a high risk of further political violence due to existing trends such as polarization and dehumanization. "It would be naive to believe that the situation could improve soon."
