Last night, David Masci, the editor-in-chief of Discourse, returned home from a birthday dinner when he saw the breaking news alert: ‘Shots Fired at Trump Rally.’ For a moment, he was shocked—but then ultimately not surprised, given how heated our political rhetoric has become. He quickly drafted the following essay on what we might do to pull our nation together as it seems to hover on the brink.
History often works in mysterious ways. But for an inch in one direction in the path of a bullet, the 2024 presidential election would have taken a dramatic and radical turn. Indeed, even though the assassination attempt against Donald Trump failed, the trajectory of the race will almost certainly be altered. Pictures of a bloody but defiant Trump raising his fist in the moments after the gunshots ended is bound to help him widen an already expanding lead over President Biden, possibly for good.
We may look back at Trump’s Saturday rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, as the moment when the election was decided. But beyond its possible political impact, the shooting in Butler is an opportunity for both sides to inject some much-needed restraint into their campaign rhetoric and, in doing so, attempt to set a new tone going forward, even beyond Election Day.
As I write this, the motives of the shooter remain unclear. But even if Thomas Matthew Crooks turns out to be a garden-variety crank with a big chip on his shoulder and no political axe to grind, many if not most Americans will rightly see his actions within the context of the extreme, WWE-style rhetorical brew that the American political scene has been marinating in for roughly the past decade. It is beyond obvious that some on both sides of the political aisle will literally say or do anything to gain an advantage.
President Biden, the Democrats, and their allies in the media have devoted the last few years to calling Trump and his supporters everything from extreme threats to democracy to semi-fascists. Trump, of course, elevated the politics of personal destruction to an art form during the 2016 campaign and hasn’t let up, recently calling Biden “an old, broken-down pile of crap” and Vice President Kamala Harris “pathetic.” The only surprise is that it’s taken this long for someone to take a shot at one of these candidates.
In the hours following Saturday’s incident, both sides acted appropriately. Biden strongly condemned the shooting, calling it “sick” and saying that “there’s no place for this kind of violence in America.” He also called Trump and said that he was praying for him and his family. Good. For his part, Trump released a statement thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement officials for saving his life and expressing condolences for an innocent bystander at the rally who had been killed and concern for another attendee who was injured. Also good.
Call me cynical, but I’m under no illusions that this episode will change either campaign’s willingness to say anything to win. And, needless to say, fellow travelers and cranks on either side will quickly blame the other side entirely for the assassination attempt. But I do hold out a small (frankly, tiny) hope that Saturday’s shooting will remove the incentive for the campaigns to continue behaving irresponsibly.
All of us (including your humble correspondent) frequently shake our heads and tut-tut the sad state of politics in America today. But as with the state of the culture, our politics is a mirror of our society. To put it another way: we have seen the enemy, and it is us.
The only way the campaigns will use Saturday’s shooting as a teachable moment and dial back the hostile and overblown language is if they think they will pay a political price for continuing with business as usual. If one of the major candidates were to be booed by his or her supporters for saying something hateful and stupid, that might actually change the dynamic of the campaign going forward. It may not even need to come to that. If polling in the coming days shows a very strong desire among voters of all stripes for a more civil, dignified race, that might be enough (at least for a time) to convince the Svengalis in both campaigns to persuade their bosses to change tack.
Incentivizing better behavior doesn’t have to mean that hearts and minds in Bidenworld or Trumpworld will change overnight. But who knows? To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you want to be a better person, start acting like one, and one day you may actually discover that your good behavior has become who you are rather than who you want to be.
In the meantime, it goes without saying that even taking a short break from the in-and-out tide of ridiculous and hateful rhetorical detritus would do all of us some good. And who knows? Given how much both candidates like to talk, maybe they’ll even feel compelled to start speaking more about the issues. With the pile of serious domestic and international challenges currently facing the country, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Maybe it’s just hazy nostalgia on my part or coincidence, but I think the country was better off (and better run) when there was more comity among our political leadership, when leaders like Republican president Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill would share a drink and a few laughs and then hammer out compromises that gave both sides something they wanted. Or when political foes, like Mitt Romey and Barack Obama, could share a friendly embrace after a debate.
I’m old enough to remember (as a young reporter on Capitol Hill) watching congressional leaders from different parties, such as senators Bob Dole and George Mitchell, square off in tough legislative battles and then call each other “friend”—and seemingly mean it. These friendships, even if they were partly for form’s sake, meant that continued conversations and even future compromises were possible, even after difficult political fights.
No one expects President Biden and former president Trump to share a few drinks and laughs anytime soon. (For starters, Trump doesn’t drink, and neither man seems in a jolly mood these days.) But hopefully, Saturday’s tragedy won’t go to waste. Hopefully, the American people will demand at least a temporary halt to dangerous rhetoric. If Saturday’s events prompt both candidates to continue behaving at even the most basic level of civility, that will be a good start.
David Masci is the editor-in-chief of Discourse, the Mercatus Center’s journal of politics, economics, and culture. Follow him on X @DavidJMasci.
And to support more of our work, become a Free Press subscriber today:
Original subscriber here. I decided to let my subscription lapse. I know I sound like one of those “take my marbles and go home” people. This enormous event though is my tipping point.
I wondered to myself “why now?” Here’s a key thing I’ve realized. TFP is emotionally driven, not fact based. Bari obviously has every right to run her publication as she sees fit. I can’t argue with the enormous success she’s had. Maybe I’m not the right subscriber for TFP.
Here is the key hypocrisy I see. The previous watershed event we had was the Hamas slaughter of 1,200 innocent Israelis. Insult was added to injury by the sickening response by the media, college administrators, our government, and many of our citizens. I was totally with TFP and can completely see their perspective even though I’m not Jewish. I reveled in their lampooning of the administration, colleges, media and celebrities for their ridiculous and downright anti-Semitic views. This event was deeply personal for Bari though. I think in that case her personal feelings aligned with the truth. So in that respect it was easy to be true to TFP aspirations.
So where is their outrage at the treatment of Trump? Where are the interviews with conservatives who were shocked and dismayed? Where are the thought pieces about how the crazy left got so far off track in this country? It’s nowhere to be found. Just a bunch of both sides-ism. That is because They Don’t Like Trump and they blame him for his own near death experience. There probably is a tinge of guilt there too for their own participation in the demonization of Trump. Articles to rationalize this behavior make them feel better without admitting fault.
Well, sorry, that just doesn’t pass the smell test. If you are going to let your personal feelings drive your editorial decisions then your publication has no right to toot its own horn about being the lone objective voice in a sea of madness. You remind us of that so often of your supposed superiority I think you realize it’s not true deep in your heart.
It’s been fun. I actually think the people in the comments could do a better job editorially than Bari and company. You might look to recruit a few of them to help you regain/ attain objectivity. Maybe if something like that happens I’ll be back.
The two sides are not the same. It is the left that is pushing the boundaries of government and culture far past what normal politics can handle. They have promoted an obviously senile old man into the pinnacle of power so they can control him. And the picture of Obama and Romney canoodling is perfect: Romney lost. Before Trump, the GOP was content to nominate affable losers who made nice concession speeches. I am interested in winning, and Trump will fight and win. He has transformed the GOP for the better. Our government is too big, too wasteful, and captured by those that have no respect for my rights or cultural inheritance, and I want none of it. Trump fights. He is the indispensable man right now. The rhetorical temperature can go up or down, but we need to win.