Two assassination attempts in sixty days. Our political culture ought to be in shock. But it seems otherwise. Journalists certainly write their reports. Opinionators opine. Kamala Harris condemns political violence and describes herself as “deeply disturbed” by the most recent attempt on Trump’s life. Joe Biden says, “There is no place for political violence.” Meanwhile, everyone picks up where they left off, warning that Trump and his MAGA voters pose grave threats to everything true, good, and beautiful.
The day after the assassination attempt in Florida, the New York Times published a column by David French on Trump’s “deeply alarming” statements and actions. According to French, the former president made “a corrupt and lunatic request” to Ukrainian president Zelensky in 2019. French suggests that Trump conducted his foreign policy “on the basis of his personal grievances” and not in accord with America’s national interest. The column ends with a warning that Trump is a deranged madman and that “there is no one left who can stop him from doing his worst.” What are readers to conclude?
For the last eight years, we’ve been fed a steady diet of fright-words. “Far-right extremism.” “White Christian nationalism.” “Jim Crow 2.0.” “Fascism.” I foresee more dire commentary before November. “Trump is planning to suspend the Constitution.” “He’ll erect death camps for migrants.” “He’s Putin’s secret weapon to destroy America.”
What accounts for the hysteria? No doubt there are many answers to this question.
Journalists are addicted to social media, a surreal environment that is at once riven with intense verbal violence and at the same time utterly without consequences. Social media trains us to be politically irresponsible. We imagine that we can hurl invective without damaging the body politic, without encouraging the deranged and disturbed among us to act upon our words.
The verbal turbulence reaches crisis proportions because our establishment institutions no longer stabilize American society. The New York Times ought to provide a moderating influence—but it fuels rather than tempers the hysteria. Universities should be places of sober analysis. But at Yale, philosophy professor Jason Stanley and history professor Timothy Snyder publish books of political propaganda that describe Trump as the second coming of Adolf Hitler. TV newscasters intone rants rather than report on events.
Underneath these phenomena there exists a toxic combination of elite anxiety and complacency. Members of the liberal establishment sense the public’s discontent. They’re half aware that the last thirty years have not gone well for many, perhaps most, Americans. One hundred thousand die every year from drug overdose. The mental health of young people is in the toilet. De-industrialization has immiserated entire regions. Imperial overreach has led to failed wars, with another one unfolding in Ukraine. Voters have become indocile. Criminal prosecution of Trump and his associates and censorship of social media have not brought regime dissent under control.
The anxiety is heightened by the growing ineffectiveness of trustworthy anathemas. Until recently, labeling someone a racist put an end to his public career. That’s no longer the case. Harris reiterated the false claim that Trump described the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville as “very fine people”—to no effect. “Far-right” has become a lifeless adjective. “Fascist” is so overused that it is useless. The once trustworthy weapons now shoot blanks. Being disarmed in this way must be very disturbing for those accustomed to controlling the boundaries of acceptable political opinion.
And yet at the same time our elite is self-satisfied. The members of our liberal establishment can’t imagine a world in which they are not in charge. They talk of defeating Putin. They make plans for hoisting rainbow flags in Mongolia. They presume that Harvard will always be Harvard. Yes, smart and responsible people must make some adjustments. But they will remain in the driver’s seat.
The upshot is today’s irresponsible rhetoric. All means are justified to prevent threats to their rule—because only they are the responsible and right-thinking people, and they must rule.
I do not claim to be a prophet. But I can make informed predictions. If Trump’s polling numbers rise, liberal commentators will barrage the public with dire warnings. Their rhetoric will become more extreme, providing the verbal atmosphere that will encourage further attempts on Trump’s life.
R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.
First Things depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.
Click here to make a donation.
Click here to subscribe to First Things.
Image by Diplomatic Security Service, provided by Flickr, in the public domain. Image cropped.
