The link between violence and partisan rhetoric

The Pelosi assault illustrates the partisan problem of political violence

At its core, the aggression is “inextricable from a broader concern about political violence in the USA,” argued Philip Bump for The Washington Post. According to news outlet reviews and anecdotal proof, the suspect in the assault, 42-year-old David DePape, was engaged in online political conspiracies and hateful rhetoric previous to the break-in; one acquaintance characterised him as “out of touch with reality.”

DePape additionally indicated he was truly after the speaker, a common and longtime target of political hostility, and wished to break her kneecaps to indicate “other members of Congress there were consequences to actions,” based on a Monday affidavit. “If DePape is proven to have been affected by mental illness that contributed to his actions, it’s clear that political rhetoric about Pelosi was a key factor in bringing him to the house,” Bump continued.

However sadly, that is not where dialogue of the incident has led — rather, the narrative has become shrouded in dubious theories and baseless allegations (Bump points to Republicans here, specifically), all of which obscure the true, and really horrifying, takeaway: That “an 82-year-old man was beaten with a hammer simply because his wife is a prominent Democrat.”

The conspiracies which have taken hold, largely in right-wing circles, defy “credulity from the standpoint that DePape spent weeks sharing right-wing and conspiratorial content on the web, something that fits far more neatly into the real story than the contrived one.” As the violence has clearly illustrated, “there’s an ecosystem interested in scoring points against the left regardless of how morally repulsive doing so might be.”

It is a concern for all sides

In more ways than one, DePape “fits the profile” of what we would anticipate from the alleged perpetrator of such a criminal offense — somebody who “latches on to internet obsessions, some of which turn out to be political,” mused The Wall Street Journal editorial board. However the “U.S. is full of such people, and their political targets are on the left and right, Democrats and Republicans.” In different words, the omnipresent concern of political violence doesn’t pertain solely to 1 side or one politician.

Bear in mind when an armed man, upset concerning the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s house back in May? Or when, during a campaign stop, New York gubernatorial candidate Rep. Lee Zeldin (R) was compelled to dodge a person who rushed on stage wielding a sharp object?

“Ultimately, the political and media classes can help by avoiding hateful rhetoric aimed at their opponents,” advised the Journal. “The risk of violence will grow as the election nears and passions get hot, and as more people come to mistakenly believe that any one election will determine the country’s fate. Small-d democratic tolerance is in short supply these days, but it behooves everyone in public life to practice it.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Mark Barabak agreed with the Journal: “The animosity — if not outrageous caricature — runs both ways. Repeated polls have found Democrats questioning the goodwill and patriotism, not to mention judgment, of Republicans,” Barabak stated. “It’s no longer just the fringe acting out.”

Any political violence is an issue — however there are numbers at play

The assault on Paul Pelosi ought to “shock the conscience of the nation,” Jill Filipovic argued in The Guardian. However instead, many conservatives have been “working overtime to deny that the right holds any responsibility here, chalking this up to a random act of violence and arguing that sometimes leftists are violent, too.” In fact, that is undoubtedly true, Filipovic mentioned, citing the same situations as the Journal’s editorial board.

However there are some essential variations between right and left-wing political violence, “not least among them the fact that right-wing political violence is much more common … [and] much more likely to be fatal than left-wing violence.” Any and all political violence is, after all, an issue — however if you take a look at the numbers, one type is more pervasive and vital than the other.

For example, when Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and almost killed in 2017, there have been no “prominent liberals with national platforms and connections to Democratic administrations” that recommended dressing as an injured Scalise for Halloween, à la Donald Trump Jr. after the Pelosi incident. There may be “a pattern here that you just don’t see on the left,” Filipovic continued, and right-wingers and the Republican Party should cease treating the assault on the speaker’s household “like a sideshow instead of the real warning it is.”

Blaming solely Republicans is incorrect and transparent

The focus on Republicans in the aftermath of the assault makes it clear the media’s dialogue of the incident has less to do with “toning down political rhetoric” and more to do with “demonizing their political opposition,” Zachary Faria mused for The Washington Examiner, citing an interview during which CBS News’ Margaret Brennan instructed National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) pull some of the Republican assault advertisements mentioning Pelosi by name, or even delete a tweet through which he wrote “#FirePelosi” while holding a gun.

(Emmer did condemn the assault on the speaker’s husband, however defended the original message of his tweet, which he stated was not an advert and more about simply “exercising our Second Amendment rights” and “having fun.”)

In indicting conservatives for criticizing Pelosi, the media reveals itself solely focused on political violence because it could possibly place the blame on Republicans — ahead of the midterms, at that. “That is what establishment media decided to do here before we even knew anything about the culprit,” Faria stated. “This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to get Republicans to stop campaigning or, extra likely, to demonize Republicans further for daring to campaign after the attack.”

Whereas she did not find claims of Republican culpability completely tied to election ambitions, columnist Ingrid Jacques additionally took issue with the media’s framing. Writing for USA Today, Jacques condemned the instant politicization of the assault — “it strikes me as offensive and sad that we can’t take a moment to simply feel compassion for a fellow human being” — and argued the instant GOP finger-pointing is “a lot to assume” given what we still do and do not know in regards to DePape. “The incivility and tribalism that surround us comes from both sides,” she continued.

Additionally, Jacques stated she doesn’t recall “any national reckoning about devise debates” or incisive statements from President Biden following the Kavanaugh incident, nor was there comparable “media handwringing” after the assault on Scalise. The reality right here, Jacques concluded, “is likely to be trumped by political opportunism.”