At a recent rally in North Carolina, Donald Trump said the following:
"So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes -- it's a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in."
There is something seriously concerning about what Trump said at that rally, other than the fact he thinks "bigly" is a real word. Quite a few people, including a former director of the CIA, interpreted Trump's call to arms for "Second Amendment people" to literally take up arms against Clinton. It is ambiguous and vague, but it sounds a bit like Trump is winking at gun owners and suggesting that they assassinate Clinton or the judges she would pick in office.
The Trump camp was quick to dismiss this charge as Clinton propaganda. Trump tweeted "I said pro-2A citizens must organize and get out vote to save our Constitution!" Yet other conservatives, such as Paul Ryan, suggested Trump did suggest assassinating Clinton, but only joked about doing so. Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, believed Trump's language could not be interpreted reasonably as an incitement to violence. Other Trump supporters have admitted that he spoke vaguely, but that Trump is "inarticulate at times" and not a professor in "grammar."
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Trump would seriously give a green light to his supporters to target Clinton. Yet, regardless of whether he was joking or just speaking vaguely, it is clear that some of his supporters interpreted his comment the same way the "liberal media" did. Just look behind Trump on the stage.
Rather than callously claim that others are at fault, Trump should have apologized and specifically called on his supporters not to act violently. It is important to remember that even if Trump is joking, sometimes his supporters and aides are not. During the RNC, one adviser to Trump said on a radio show that Clinton "should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.” The official Twitter account of the Riverside County, California Republican Party posted this picture.
Thomas Friedman, of the New York Times, writes in an op-ed that this sort of vilification led to the assassination of the Israeli Prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, in 1995. Campaigning for a two state solution with the Palestinians, an idea that was deeply unpopular with the religious right wing in Israel, Rabin found himself amidst a sea of hostile rhetoric.
Friedman writes that "His right-wing opponents just kept delegitimizing him as a “traitor” and “a Nazi” for wanting to make peace with the Palestinians and give back part of the Land of Israel. Of course, all is fair in politics, right? And they had God on their side, right? They weren’t actually telling anyone to assassinate Rabin. That would be horrible."
Yet, that is exactly what happened. Rabin was shot by a fanatic who had felt motivated by the hostility and rhetoric of the Israeli right.
The 2011 Tuscan shooting is a more recent example. A deranged individual shot US representative Gabrielle Giffords, a democrat from Arizona, in the head outside of a supermarket. She survived, but is still undergoing extensive rehabilitation. After the attack, society raised questions about the hostility of political rhetoric in the country and whether the political climate had enabled the shooter. Sarah Palin came under heavy criticism for a webpage that included Democrats up for reelection with crosshairs over their districts, including the district Giffords represented. Palin may not have been directly responsible, or even indirectly responsible for the shooting. Still it is essential to consider that words can often provoke people struggling to cope with mental illness or other problems. Why take the risk for a joke?
Unsurprisingly, Giffords has condemned Trump for his comments. In a statement released to the press, she wrote that "Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed.”
The Republicans need to tone the rhetoric down across the board. Trump, in particular, may not be a "grammar professor," but we should still expect him to correct himself and apologize when he says something that could instigate violence. Should he continue to ignore the consequences of his own words, that would prove that he is unfit for the Oval Office.
