The peace that has existed in American politics is a historical anomaly compared to most other nations. It rolls along like a bicycle wheel, operating within a narrow band of mutual respect focused on issues, not personalities. There have been strong leaders before, but usually, they fade into the strength of their administration. When, for any reason, the focus changes to personalities, it becomes wobbly and untenable. For the past eight years, nearly half of the shooter’s lifetime, and certainly the entirety of his political awareness, politics have been focused on personality, with breathless mainstream media reports and political speeches claiming that his target was an existential threat to democracy who intended an immediate wide range of evil for this nation.
So, on July 13, 2024, this individual apparently decided to take matters into his own hands and become a hero in his own mind, probably dying with the thought that he had “saved democracy.” But America snapped back to reality, with opposing politicians stating that such violence was uncalled for and inexcusable, despite the fact that many of them thought their language had fomented this. It is true that violence has no legitimate place in American politics – we fight our battles in the voting booth. To right the wheel, the focus needs to shift from terrifying false hypotheticals to the boring topics of which candidate has the best policy.
Today, in the age of the Internet, words hold unprecedented power. They can inspire, unite, and elevate. Yet, they also have the capacity to incite, divide, and inflict harm. When wielded by influential figures, harmful rhetoric can set the stage for violence, even if the original intention was merely to win an argument or score political points.
Rhetoric is designed to persuade and influence. When leaders use inflammatory language or spread false information, they stir strong emotions and provoke extreme reactions. This is particularly dangerous when such rhetoric is used to manipulate public opinion or gain political leverage. The consequences can be dire, as history has shown us.
Consider the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Radio broadcasts dehumanized the Tutsi population and incited violence among the Hutu majority, leading to the massacre of approximately 800,000 people. This tragic event starkly reminds us how dangerous words can be when used irresponsibly.
In democratic societies, robust debates are a cornerstone of political discourse. However, there is a fine line between healthy debate and harmful rhetoric. Politicians often walk this line, sometimes crossing it in their quest to sway public opinion. A notable example is the June 27, 2019, Democratic primary debate involving Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
During the debate, Kamala Harris accused Joe Biden of being racially insensitive due to his past opposition to federally mandated busing for school desegregation. The exchange was intense and garnered significant media attention. Harris’s statements were designed to challenge Biden and appeal to specific voter demographics. However, she later downplayed her remarks, stating in an interview after she was selected as Vice President, “It was a debate!” This admission highlighted the performative aspect of political rhetoric and raised ethical questions about using inflammatory language for political gain.
Political leaders can unleash real-world consequences when they make strong statements, even for rhetorical effect. What happened on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol was partly fueled by election fraud claims.
Godwin’s Law, coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, asserts that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches certainty. This principle underscores the ease with which extremist rhetoric can infiltrate discourse, particularly on the internet. While invoking Nazi comparisons can sometimes serve as a hyperbolic warning, it often degrades the quality of debate and heightens tensions. Comparing a political opponent to Hitler is an invitation to violence for people who believe that a particular politician constitutes an existential threat to democracy.
Harmful rhetoric has the potential to incite violence and sow division. Politicians and other influential figures must wield their words with a sense of responsibility and awareness of their broader impact. The line between passionate debate and harmful rhetoric is thin but significant. As society grapples with increasing polarization, the need for thoughtful, responsible discourse has never been more critical.
Words are powerful. They can shape our world for better or worse. It is up to each of us, especially those in positions of power, to ensure that our rhetoric builds bridges rather than burns them.
