The BBC says the latest suspected attempt on the life of Donald Trump is proof that ‘political violence’ is the ‘new norm’ in America. It’s half right. There does seem to be a ‘new normal’ over there, but it’s not some abstract thing called ‘political violence’. It’s not some broad-strokes brutish contempt for all rulers of society. It’s more targeted than that. It has one politician in particular in its crosshairs. If there’s a new normal in America, it would appear to be a new normal of an increasingly militant culture of grievance against the 45th President of the United States, now aspiring to be the 47th: Donald Trump.
There’s a palpable reluctance in the MSM today to discuss the Trump-specific nature of recent acts of political terror. Many would rather wring their hands over ‘gun culture’. ‘The secret service didn’t fail Trump on Sunday’, says MSNBC of the latest suspected assassination attempt: ‘America’s gun culture did.’ Commentators agonise over the fact that the alleged would-be assassin involved in yesterday’s fracas was in possession of an AK-47. That’s the crazy thing, they say. Others focus on the poison of ‘polarisation’. The Beeb says it’s a mix of a ‘coarsened’ national discourse and an ‘epidemic of gun violence’ that has made attacks like yesterday’s ‘inevitable’.
Of course, questions can be asked about the easy availability of lethal weapons in the US. Even supporters of the Second Amendment feel iffy that fruitloops can purchase Soviet-invented assault rifles and rock up to a Florida golf course with one in the car. And public life is increasingly frazzled at the moment. Politics feels like a screaming match between opposing poles stone deaf to one another’s concerns. And yet, today’s focus on ‘gun culture’ and ‘polarisation’ feels like a displacement activity: a focus on the method of the violence (guns) and the backdrop to the violence (polarisation) in an effort to avoid looking into the eye of the violence: the strange, swirling contempt for Trump.
That there have been two suspected efforts to murder one of the candidates in the presidential election is extraordinary. It is unprecedented. ‘There’s no political playbook for how to deal with another apparent assassination attempt against a major-party presidential candidate within weeks of an election’, says Stephen Collinson at CNN. Platitudes about ‘gun culture’ and ‘culture wars’ are an outright betrayal of the gravity of the situation, of this unique, and uniquely unsettling, moment in the life of the American republic where a candidate for the highest office has come close to being murdered twice.
The second alleged attempt took place at Trump’s private golf club in West Palm Beach yesterday afternoon. Secret-service agents spied the barrel of a rifle poking through bushes around 300 to 500 yards from where Trump was golfing. They pursued the alleged would-be assassin and arrested him. It was one Ryan Wesley Routh, a 58-year-old from North Carolina with firm political beliefs, some of them quite eccentric. This follows the shooting of Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on 13 July. Trump’s ear was grazed. Had he not been turning his head at the time, he might be dead.
People are poring over Routh’s voting habits and social-media history in search of a motive. But he’s hard to pin down. He is super pro-Ukraine. He once said ‘we need to burn the Kremlin to the ground’. So perhaps he was aggrieved with Trump’s insistence that we need a compromise between Russia and Ukraine in order to bring that awful war to a close. He also seems Israelophobic. He questioned Jews’ claims to the land of Israel, sharing a map of the region with the words: ‘It seems to historically all be Palestinian.’ So maybe he hated Trump’s pro-Israel stance. It seems he was a Trump supporter once, but he later lost faith, damning Trump as an ‘idiot’, a ‘buffoon’, a ‘fool’ and a threat to democracy. ‘DEMOCRACY is on the ballot and we cannot lose’, he said in a post on X earlier this year in which he tagged Joe Biden.
Some Republicans and right-wing talking heads are citing all this stuff as proof that the Dems and their cheerleaders in the liberal media have whipped up a psychotic level of animus for Trump. After all, Routh’s outpourings sound familiar, right? ‘Democracy is on the ballot’ – say that at a New York Times soiree and 20 people will clink your glass in vivid agreement. I’m not comfortable with this argument. Even as someone concerned about the chattering classes’ Trump Derangement Syndrome, I find the drawing of a direct line between Dem rhetoric and a gunman’s violence cynical. And censorious. ‘Unless Kamala tones down her barbs, someone will get hurt’ – that’s the blackmailing undertone to this rush to pin the blame for violence on words.
It also feels too easy. Just as those who are fretting over gun culture and polarisation seem incapable of grappling with the seriousness of what’s happening, so those who say ‘IT’S ALL CNN’S FAULT’ clearly prefer pat explanations to deep interrogation. The idea that Kamala calling Trump a rude name might make a loon want to kill him is as mad as saying that owning an AK-47 is the logical first step to wanting to kill a presidential candidate. In both scenarios, too many steps are missed out. Too much nuance is discarded. Too much of the depth of the moral and political crisis afflicting the US – and much of the West – is sacrificed at the altar of scoring a quick point against your opponents on the back of horrific violence.
It strikes me that the boiling hatred for Trump, which has now expressed itself in two dreadful, almost murderous events, speaks to a culture whose roots are deeper than we know, and more difficult to discern than we would like. It’s a culture of simmering intolerance, a culture of grievance, a culture where one expresses one’s angst less through the old civilised norms of discussion and disagreement than through the wail of implacable rage and the instinct to destroy that which offends you. Is it possible the attempted assassinations of Trump are not really ideological acts, like the slaying of MLK or RFK, but rather are the militant wing of our amorphous cancel culture? An apocalyptic expression of something that is now almost mundane: high society’s burning hostility to that which deviates from the narrative of correct-think? Perhaps the unprecedented double attempt on the life of a presidential candidate feels both alien and familiar because it is shocking but also… not shocking. Right?
It’s possible, likely even, that media rhetoric contributed to this culture of grievance. But there is so much more at play. We are living through not only political hot-headedness but also a wholesale discarding of the old norms of democratic deliberation, of the civilised norms of argument and choice. In their stead has risen an intolerant lust for silencing rather than engaging with those who hold alternative visions for society. And Trump, for a myriad of reasons, has become the chief target of this uncivilised urge to crush the other. I wonder if the unwillingness of the intellectual classes to look honestly at the ‘new normal’ of anti-Trump violence springs from a fear that they might glimpse themselves in it – or at least glimpse their failure over the years to call out society’s drift from democracy to irrationalism. Regardless, we need to talk about the violent contempt for Trump, and what it tells us about our world.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
Of course, questions can be asked about the easy availability of lethal weapons in the US. Even supporters of the Second Amendment feel iffy that fruitloops can purchase Soviet-invented assault rifles and rock up to a Florida golf course with one in the car. And public life is increasingly frazzled at the moment. Politics feels like a screaming match between opposing poles stone deaf to one another’s concerns. And yet, today’s focus on ‘gun culture’ and ‘polarisation’ feels like a displacement activity: a focus on the method of the violence (guns) and the backdrop to the violence (polarisation) in an effort to avoid looking into the eye of the violence: the strange, swirling contempt for Trump.
That there have been two suspected efforts to murder one of the candidates in the presidential election is extraordinary. It is unprecedented. ‘There’s no political playbook for how to deal with another apparent assassination attempt against a major-party presidential candidate within weeks of an election’, says Stephen Collinson at CNN. Platitudes about ‘gun culture’ and ‘culture wars’ are an outright betrayal of the gravity of the situation, of this unique, and uniquely unsettling, moment in the life of the American republic where a candidate for the highest office has come close to being murdered twice.
The second alleged attempt took place at Trump’s private golf club in West Palm Beach yesterday afternoon. Secret-service agents spied the barrel of a rifle poking through bushes around 300 to 500 yards from where Trump was golfing. They pursued the alleged would-be assassin and arrested him. It was one Ryan Wesley Routh, a 58-year-old from North Carolina with firm political beliefs, some of them quite eccentric. This follows the shooting of Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on 13 July. Trump’s ear was grazed. Had he not been turning his head at the time, he might be dead.
People are poring over Routh’s voting habits and social-media history in search of a motive. But he’s hard to pin down. He is super pro-Ukraine. He once said ‘we need to burn the Kremlin to the ground’. So perhaps he was aggrieved with Trump’s insistence that we need a compromise between Russia and Ukraine in order to bring that awful war to a close. He also seems Israelophobic. He questioned Jews’ claims to the land of Israel, sharing a map of the region with the words: ‘It seems to historically all be Palestinian.’ So maybe he hated Trump’s pro-Israel stance. It seems he was a Trump supporter once, but he later lost faith, damning Trump as an ‘idiot’, a ‘buffoon’, a ‘fool’ and a threat to democracy. ‘DEMOCRACY is on the ballot and we cannot lose’, he said in a post on X earlier this year in which he tagged Joe Biden.
Some Republicans and right-wing talking heads are citing all this stuff as proof that the Dems and their cheerleaders in the liberal media have whipped up a psychotic level of animus for Trump. After all, Routh’s outpourings sound familiar, right? ‘Democracy is on the ballot’ – say that at a New York Times soiree and 20 people will clink your glass in vivid agreement. I’m not comfortable with this argument. Even as someone concerned about the chattering classes’ Trump Derangement Syndrome, I find the drawing of a direct line between Dem rhetoric and a gunman’s violence cynical. And censorious. ‘Unless Kamala tones down her barbs, someone will get hurt’ – that’s the blackmailing undertone to this rush to pin the blame for violence on words.
It also feels too easy. Just as those who are fretting over gun culture and polarisation seem incapable of grappling with the seriousness of what’s happening, so those who say ‘IT’S ALL CNN’S FAULT’ clearly prefer pat explanations to deep interrogation. The idea that Kamala calling Trump a rude name might make a loon want to kill him is as mad as saying that owning an AK-47 is the logical first step to wanting to kill a presidential candidate. In both scenarios, too many steps are missed out. Too much nuance is discarded. Too much of the depth of the moral and political crisis afflicting the US – and much of the West – is sacrificed at the altar of scoring a quick point against your opponents on the back of horrific violence.
It strikes me that the boiling hatred for Trump, which has now expressed itself in two dreadful, almost murderous events, speaks to a culture whose roots are deeper than we know, and more difficult to discern than we would like. It’s a culture of simmering intolerance, a culture of grievance, a culture where one expresses one’s angst less through the old civilised norms of discussion and disagreement than through the wail of implacable rage and the instinct to destroy that which offends you. Is it possible the attempted assassinations of Trump are not really ideological acts, like the slaying of MLK or RFK, but rather are the militant wing of our amorphous cancel culture? An apocalyptic expression of something that is now almost mundane: high society’s burning hostility to that which deviates from the narrative of correct-think? Perhaps the unprecedented double attempt on the life of a presidential candidate feels both alien and familiar because it is shocking but also… not shocking. Right?
It’s possible, likely even, that media rhetoric contributed to this culture of grievance. But there is so much more at play. We are living through not only political hot-headedness but also a wholesale discarding of the old norms of democratic deliberation, of the civilised norms of argument and choice. In their stead has risen an intolerant lust for silencing rather than engaging with those who hold alternative visions for society. And Trump, for a myriad of reasons, has become the chief target of this uncivilised urge to crush the other. I wonder if the unwillingness of the intellectual classes to look honestly at the ‘new normal’ of anti-Trump violence springs from a fear that they might glimpse themselves in it – or at least glimpse their failure over the years to call out society’s drift from democracy to irrationalism. Regardless, we need to talk about the violent contempt for Trump, and what it tells us about our world.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
What the MSM is not reporting, and I didn't see mentioned in your report, is that both assassins are Republicans. That throws some shade over the Harris Insult Theory.
One of your best Brendan .
And are we not pretty close to being in the same position here in New Zealand where the radical rhetoric is inspiring the same level of intolerance which could result in fatalities. Yet the MSM and certain political groups are hell bent on fuelling this unfortunate societal trend. It has become their stock in trade.
Who would have thought!
FBI agent in charge of investigating Trump assassination attempt, Jeffrey Veltri, was asked to delete his Anti Trump social media posts by Chris Wray (FBI Head) before he was promoted to his position as lead Agent in the FBI Miami office. In other words, this Keystone Cop outfit has appointed a fox to guard the chicken coup.
Am I allowed to ask - "do the Reporting staff of the BBC, use their cell phones to acquire data for a story"? The reason I ask, is that Brendan in that second paragraph of his story, relates to the BBC "agony over the alleged would be assassin and American gun culture". It means that the staff of the BBC News teams, have no idea about American Gun Culture.
Every American (note word "every"- this includes both men & women/ yup the Ladies are into their guns to), who can "legally gain access to a firearm, will do so and claim that The 2nd Amendment allows them to do this". You will find that the rational for such purchases, is "Home Defense". Many also belong to a "Gun Club" (if it has a firing range) and/or use a firing range to practice ability in both handling a firearm, reloading skills and then maintenance.
And many have more that one gun, semi automatics prevailing - American made the first preference.
The safe storage of all firearms is a must, with many having multiple guns, everything under - lock & key is paramount.
The 'privilege" to carry a hand gun (commonly a 9 round magazine, semi automatic - Glock or Sig Sauer being the gun[s] of choice - Glock also produce a semi automatic for Females) - these guns being carried on the person in either -
[1] - open carry, openly displayed in a hip holster
[2]- concealed carry, think Secret Service/ FBI style/approach this being the most favoured.
Irrespective of gun approach to use etc, very few licensed gun owners are involved in "deliberate shootouts", but have been involved in presenting and using their guns (from hip holster and/or concealed carry) in a public place, more common in the event of a "a person presenting a gun, firing at others/or using it as a danger to public safety, in a public space" [ I am thinking of an American Mall, when this happened, and a licensed gun owner intervened] - and Police have not yet been involved.
During the Black Live Matter (BLM) protests, it was not uncommon to find that it was African American males, with a hand gun [commonly supposed to have been acquired illegally] firing upon other African Americans, (sounds similar to NZ at the moment - Clive Bibby alludes to this) the end result people died as a result of - or died when Police opened fire upon the gun man.
With this current "scenario in America of another assassin", I wondered where the gunman obtained a "scoped AK.47" as they are not known to be an accurate firearm for sniper purposes!
With Brendan also alluding to the left leaning American MSM and their collective obsession with firearms, it is this group in collusion with the Democrat Party, that would have the The 2nd Amendment revoked (yup that Constitution would be torn apart here) and ALL public firearms removed - Hello NZ , did not Jacinda Ardern try this and the reason put to the Licensed gun owner was not the real reason for the actions that took place.
Again Clive Bibby alludes to [comment this posting] - regarding the use of a firearm [me thinks that they are not the Licensed NZ Gun owner] , and that, when it occurs, the NZ Police are very "careful not to identify the Ethnicity of the gunman" in case it causes a Racial blowback- strange that - in America, that issue does not worry the Police and/or Media.
So, the 2nd assassination attempt -a re we to be the audience to "another cover up by FBI & Secret Service"?
What “radical rhetoric”, Clive? And what examples can you cite where the MSM and others “are hell bent on fueling this unfortunate societal trend”? I am unaware of examples of political rhetoric being “pretty close” to causing ‘fatalities’, by which, I assume, you mean humans being killed. Now, that’s the rhetoric we don’t need. Otherwise, I think O’Neal’s piece is a lot of nonsense.
Here's an example of radical rhetoric; Trump talking about Harris. Really inspiring stuff. “This is Communist, this is Marxist, this is fascist,” the former president said at an August 27 rally in Pennsylvania.
Then, another clip captured Trump attacking Harris at a Friday news conference near his golf resort in Los Angeles: “This is a radical-left, Marxist, communist, fascist.”
“She’s a Marxist. She’s a fascist…“Comrade Kamala Harris,” he similarly told a crowd in Michigan on August 29. Speaking about Democrats, he continued: “They’re scum. And they want to take down our country. They are absolute garbage.”
The difference being, the Republican rhetoric is in reply to comments made or activities engaged in by Harris in a previous life - a time that she conveniently disowns in an effort to pretend she is somebody she is not.
Ewan McGregor should be the last person trying to defend the indefensible.
He’s been doing it for years .
What “radical rhetoric”, Clive? And what examples can you cite where the MSM and others “are hell bent on fueling this unfortunate societal trend”? I am unaware of examples of political rhetoric being “pretty close” to causing ‘fatalities’, by which, I assume, you mean humans being killed. Now, that’s the rhetoric we don’t need. Otherwise, I think O’Neill’s piece is a lot of nonsense.
Sadly, those sort of remarks are consistent with a person in denial of reality.
If you’re looking for examples of the radical rhetoric that is encouraging the crazies to come out from under their rocks and have a go at the former President, just watch and read Ewan’s favourite MSM outlets in the US. The thing that amazes me is that Trump has survived this deliberate incitement and may well go on to win a second term in November.
And if he does, the same left wing MSM hypocrites will be apoplectic with rage and the language they will use to describe a “stolen” election will make the current invective look like a children’s bedtime story. Unfortunately, there seems to be no accountability for those who continue to demonise the Republican candidate .
Imagine what would happen to any Trump supporter who carried on in the same manner - No doubt the Department of Justice would find a few cells in the overcrowded jails currently filled with innocent Jan 6th bystanders to house such undesirable threats to democracy.
Unbelievable!
My challenge related to this statement, Clive. "And are we not pretty close to being in the same position here in New Zealand where the radical rhetoric is inspiring the same level of intolerance which could result in fatalities." You are talking about this country. It is a reckless comment and you should justify it. What 'radical rhetoric', and by whom?
You obviously haven’t been listening to the radical rhetoric coming from those making submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal when the Government’s proposed law change regarding traditional seafood harvesting rights was being discussed.
If you had, you should have been impressed by the threats of violence being offered by submitters if the proposed changes became law, yet it was something the current government campaigned on.
There are other examples which could be used to answer your question but no doubt you will flag those comments as being nothing to worry about . Well, here’s something to consider.
I would guarantee that any poll of peoples concerns about the growing race baiting dialogue masquerading as free speech would tell you what is the most important thing on their mind.
My guess is that they are worried about the growing threats of violence
which have been allowed to go unchallenged for so long.
Almost every day, we have another radical expressing a grievance that has been manufactured to suit the vacumn left by the previous administration.
Now it is all the Coalition’s fault. Go figure.
Post a Comment