After Attack on Trump, US Must Find Way out of Polarization’s Dead End

The chances are low that people will focus long term on moderation and fair play in politics now that the shock has passed.

Let the fever cool off. Pause for a minute. Tone down the rhetoric. The takeaways from the political debate following the attack on Donald Trump indeed call for a moment of contemplation, some time for reflection. Ever the statesman, Joe Biden, who won the 2020 election with a promise to drive back the extreme polarization in America, or at least reduce it to a manageable degree, said what needed to be said after the shocking attack on his rival.

Contradictions are inevitable in a democracy — but politics should never be a battlefield, certainly not a killing field. It is definitely possible that Trump is not just assuming the role of a martyr having been saved as if by a miracle, raising a clenched fist in an image that will likely characterize his campaign until November. He is also striking a statesmanlike tone in de facto chorus with Biden. At least for a while, at least in Milwaukee, where his party has officially chosen him as its candidate for the Oval Office.

So is this the big turning point? The moment when a country that seems to be on the edge remembers moderation and fair play in conflict? After the events in Butler, Pennsylvania, can anything be the way it was before July 13? A look at recent American history, especially since 2015 and 2016, is more likely to make one skeptical than nurture any hope of change for the better. But one should never give up hope, one should never cynically write off the often invoked American talent for reinventing oneself even if it feels like whistling in the wind.

Changing History

In the past, the murder and attempted murders, of leaders were definitely wake-up calls followed by extended periods of calm. Phases in which the voice of reason prevailed. The year 1968 was one such time; there were the murders of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, and an emotionally troubled society in the midst of the Vietnam War that looked inward and set course for moderation and the center until 1976 when Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, two level-headed politicians whom people would characterize today as decisive anti-populists, battled for the presidency.

The 1981 attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, who was seriously injured, was followed by a decade that both conservative and centrist Americans glorify as a golden age to this day. Reagan, the eternal optimist, unwaveringly whistled “It’s morning again in America,” however naïve he seemed to people in Europe. Could that happen again? The first hurdle is the fact that Trump is no Reagan. At least, not yet. The second hurdle? The United States today is so divided, with adversaries as cemented in their mental bunkers as they probably had been only during the Civil War from 1861 to 1865.

Even now, when there is relief because Trump remains mostly unharmed, at least physically, it’s worth remembering exactly how he contributed to poisoning the political climate. He did not cause the polarization, but he also did nothing to stem it; on the contrary, he profited off it like no one else. He riled people up with his rhetoric, counting on agitation instead of urging calm. Not only did he level constant personal attacks against political rivals, he used language that paved the way for violence against opponents whom he occasionally dehumanized, calling them “scum,” “vermin,” and “enemies of the people.”

Malice Instead of Sympathy

Or consider how in 2022 he mocked the victim, after the hammer attack on the husband of Nancy Pelosi, then the highest ranking Democrat after Biden: “How’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Or how he tried to cling to power despite losing the election and, during the storming of the Capitol, which he incited, even willing to accept the death of Mike Pence, his loyal vice president, whom the mob threatened with the gallows. Or, even before Jan. 6, 2021, during a televised debate with Biden, how he called for the Proud Boys, a radical right-wing militia, to “stand back and stand by” just in case. The list is long, and comments after the Pennsylvania attack suggest that Trump’s Republicans will not simply switch over to the sunny forward-facing rhetoric of Reagan.

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” said Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, who — although once a critic — is now fully hitching his prospects to the Trump name as a candidate for vice president.* He believes Biden’s rhetoric led directly to the assassination attempt. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, one of the aspiring African Americans in the New York billionaire’s orbit, echoed Vance. “This was an assassination attempt aided and abetted by the radical Left and corporate media incessantly calling Trump a threat to democracy, fascists, or worse,” Scott said.

Skepticism Is Warranted

It remains to be seen whether Trump will drown out such voices with statesmanship or will soon throw fuel on the fire again. Both seem possible; however, there are reasons to be skeptical.

As recently as June in a very current study, a team of scientists from the University of Chicago documented what the brutalization of political discourse has done to society. The study said that one-tenth of Americans say violence is justified to prevent Trump from moving back into the White House. Seven percent support violence as a way to assure Trump returns to the White House. American democracy is experiencing a crisis, political scientist and lead author of the study Robert Pape told CBS.

What happened in Pennsylvania is an expression of this crisis, Pape added, tempering any expectation that the country will have a moment of reflection. The foundation of those who support violence is simply too broad. “These continuous hopes that everything is just going to fade away is just simply unrealistic.”

*Editor’s note: Donald Trump named J.D. Vance as his running mate on July 15.