Can we please wait for a moment?
Calls for Political Moderation Follow Attempt on Trump's Life. They Are Based on False Premises: Moderation in Debate Prevents No Murder Attempts. These Appeals Also Divert Attention from a Crucial Issue.
The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump had only been twelve hours old when the first analyses began to appear. The shots at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, were described by Politico as "the latest alarming evidence of the increase in violence and threats that have permeated the current political discourse in the United States."
Similarly, other media outlets expressed concern: "We must acknowledge that we have all been touched by poisonous politics - regardless of our convictions," writes the "Washington Post" in a commentary. It is now up to the leaders of both parties, as well as Americans, "to prevent a slide into further violence and the extremist language that fuels it."
Even after the recent event, an eyewitness told CNN: "I'm not surprised that this happened. I'm surprised that I was there and it happened next to me." The man recalled earlier murders and assassination attempts: the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy in 1963, his brother Robert Kennedy in 1969, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King also in 1968. The United States should not conduct political discussions on an level where such things happen.
This Analysis is Too Simple
This is not entirely incorrect, but not completely accurate either. Firstly: It is true that the United States has a unique history of violence and political violence. But in Germany, there have also been attempts on politicians: in 1990 against Oskar Lafontaine and Wolfgang Schäuble. In 2019, the CDU politician Walter Lübcke was murdered on his terrace.
Secondly: It is still unclear what motivated the assailants. The man, for example, who wanted to kill Reagan, was mentally ill. It is possible that this also applies to Thomas Matthew Crooks. So far, only known about him is that he donated $15 to the Democrats when he was 17 and registered as a Republican a few months later when he was 18.
However, even if Crooks acted on the basis of any beliefs, the political discourse in Pennsylvania is hardly responsible for the murder attempt. Because, thirdly: That would be too simple. The political discourse in Pennsylvania did not gather on a roof and attempt to assassinate Trump. It was a concrete person. Research on so-called "Lone Wolves" is known, they radicalize themselves in a way. They need a "discourse," but they seek it out for themselves.
An End to the Debate Cannot Be the Solution
The self-critical reflections of media that are always very critical of Trump are met with completely different reactions from the Republican camp. Senator J.D. Vance, a Trump loyalist who may be promoted as the Vice Presidential candidate in the coming days, writes on X: "Today is not an isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. This rhetoric led directly to the attempted assassination of President Trump."
For every price? The assumption is wrong, as US President Joe Biden is not conducting such a campaign. However, these sentences are the consistent continuation of the thoughtful tones from "New York Times" and "Washington Post." Yes, actions can come from words. But this should not lead to silencing the discourse - certainly not on the part of those who rightly warn of the dangers coming from Trump and the Republicans.
It is terrible that such an assassination attempt occurred. It is terrible that a person lost their life. The horror of this will not be diminished when it is discovered: Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a direct responsibility for the attack. We should wait for deeper analyses until details about the motives of the perpetrator are known. In the meantime: The Republicans should urgently moderate their rhetoric. But not to prevent attacks, but to prevent the destruction of the political culture in the USA.
Of course, it would be good if this attack were a wake-up call for the political culture of the USA. This is not to be expected. The central problem of the political culture in the USA is not an abstract discourse, for which "both sides" bear responsibility. But rather the fact that one of the two major parties has slipped into political radicalism. The attack has nothing to do with this: It does not justify it, it probably does not even explain it. But on the other hand, it should not be used to hide this fact.
In the context of the US Presidential Election 2024, calls for political moderation have surfaced, with some arguing that it could prevent future acts of violence. However, as US President Joe Biden is not conducting a campaign portraying former President Donald Trump as an authoritarian fascist, these accusations seem misplaced.
Despite the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, it's important to note that the political discourse in Pennsylvania did not directly initiate the attack. Rather, the perpetrator, Thomas Matthew Crooks, appears to have radicalized independently, seeking out extremist views.
