In our ugly politics, rhetoric matters

The assassination attempt against President Donald Trump and administration officials at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner revives the question of political violence in America, its ideological slant and its connection to extreme rhetoric.

Tuesday afternoon the White House re-upped its effort to place the blame on its political opponents, with a release headlined, "Democrats' Unhinged Rhetoric Incites Third Assassination Attempt on President Trump." Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has gone further, asserting that the media are complicit by "being overly critical and calling the president horrible names."

We don't know yet whether any specific sources inspired would-be assassin Cole Tomas Allen, whose manifesto stated, "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." But for top government officials to link strong criticism of the president to an assassination attempt is an alarmingly authoritarian move.

That said, turning down the temperature of political rhetoric in American culture is certainly a good idea. But blaming both political violence and violent rhetoric solely or primarily on "the left" is misleading and disingenuous. Has there been extreme language from left of center? No doubt. But the right has engaged in plenty of such language — including, first and foremost, Trump himself.

The president now denounces "hate speech" in politics. Yet, starting with his first presidential run in 2016, he repeatedly urged his fans to use violence toward disruptive protesters. Several times he has called for his political enemies to be executed for treason.

In a speech on the campaign trail in November 2023, Trump promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections." And, of course, his blanket clemency for nearly 1,600 of his supporters who had stormed Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn an election — including people who had assaulted police officers — was not exactly an anti-violence signal.

Has Trump's rhetoric, and his willingness to condone violence by his supporters, contributed to an ugly climate in which actual political violence from both sides becomes a greater danger? Very likely so.

Conservatives have cited surveys in which liberal and left wing Americans are most likely to approve of using violence for political goals. But as often happens, poll results depend on details. When people are asked if violence to promote "social change" can be good, more on the left will say yes. When the question is about "American patriots" using violence to "save our country," there's a lot more agreement on the right. NPR/PBS News/Marist Polls in 2024 and 2025 found that conservatives are more likely than liberals to endorse at least some political violence — though the gap has narrowed since Trump's reelection.

As for real-life violence, a Cato Institute analysis from last year concluded that 63% of murders related to domestic terrorism since 1975 were committed by right wing extremists while only 10% were related to left wing extremism, and another 23% to Islamist radicalism. In many cases, people peddling the narrative of the left having a near-monopoly on political violence have actively distorted the facts — for instance, claiming that a man who shot two Democratic Minnesota legislators and their spouses last year, killing one couple, was a leftist rather than an anti-abortion, anti-vaccine Trump supporter.

Let us, by all means, turn down the temperature of political conflicts. But healing must start with the truth.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.