Hyperbole and hatred: can heated rhetoric kill?
Hypocrisy and double standards are certainly rife, but the link between heated political language and real-world violence is unclear

"The classic example of chutzpah," said Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times, "is that of the child who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy as an orphan." The 2024 presidential election has given us a new version: the candidate who merrily stokes hatred and division, then turns around to condemn his opponents' harsh language.
Following the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, his running mate J.D. Vance took a break from spreading inflammatory lies about Haitian migrants eating pets to make a cynical plea for reasonable discourse. "Look," he declared, "we can disagree with one another, we can debate one another, but we cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist and, if he's elected, it is going to be the end of American democracy." The Left needs to "tone down" its language, he said, or "somebody is gonna get hurt". Trump himself claimed that the Democrats' rhetoric "is causing me to be shot at". This is the man who told his supporters to "fight like hell" to regain the White House before the 6 January riots, and who has consistently abused his political rivals.
Typical of Trump to turn the violence against him "into fuel for more political hatred", said Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. In 1975, President Gerald Ford survived two assassination attempts in a little over two weeks. He didn't blame his opponents, or seek to fundraise off the back of the attacks; he just started wearing a trench coat with a zip-in Kevlar vest.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
There's hypocrisy on all sides here, said Robby Soave in Reason. Trump has called Kamala Harris a fascist, and Vance himself once described Trump as America's Hitler. In 2011, Republicans rightly criticised the Democrats for "lazily and falsely" seeking to blame them for the shooting of the Democrat congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a disturbed loner. We should be wary of attempts to "draw any causal line" between heated political language and real-world violence.
It would be nice, though, if public debate in the US could be a little less overwrought, said John Halpin on Substack. One problem is that presidential elections are just too long. Other nations, such as the UK, wrap up their campaigns in weeks. When the US votes in November, it will have been "waging presidential warfare for 700-plus days": two years of incessant arguing and hyperbole.
Every election is now "the most important election of our lifetime" as the two polarised parties and their media cheerleaders raise the stakes to absurd levels. If the other side wins it means "communism" or "fascism" and "civil war". It's enough to "drive decent people crazy – and crazy people even nuttier". In an ideal world, we'd simplify the process. But given all the money to be made selling chaos, rage and mutual loathing, "nothing much is likely to change".
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Laura Lippman's 6 favorite books for those who crave a high-stakes adventure
Feature The Grand Master recommends works by E.L. Konigsburg, Charles Portis, and more
-
Book reviews: 'Bad Company: Private Equity and the Death of the American Dream' and 'Desi Arnaz: The Man Who Invented Television'
Feature Private equity and the man who created 'I Love Lucy' get their close-ups
-
Can Texas redistricting save the US House for the GOP?
Today's Big Question Trump pushes a 'ruthless' new plan, but it could backfire
-
A Democratic election in Arizona is a microcosm of the party's infighting
The Explainer The top three candidates are fighting it out for a special election seat
-
Big, beautiful bill: Supercharging ICE
Feature With billions in new funding, ICE is set to expand its force of agents and build detention camps capable of holding more than 100,000 people
-
Deportations: Citizens could be next
Feature the Trump is expanding denaturalization efforts, targeting naturalized citizens and birthright citizenship
-
Ukraine: Trump's mixed messages
Feature Trump reverses a Pentagon freeze on Patriot missiles to Ukraine as Russia ramps up air attacks
-
Death from above: Drones upend rules of war in Ukraine
Feature The world's militaries are paying close attention to drone use in the Russia-Ukraine war
-
Supreme Court: Ceding more power to Trump?
Feature SCOTUS has given Trump a victory by ending nationwide injunctions, limiting judges' power to block presidential orders
-
The Pam Bondi and Dan Bongino schism threatens Trump's DOJ
In the Spotlight Two MAGA partisans find themselves on either end of a growing scandal over Jeffrey Epstein and his ties to White House officials
-
Secret Service 'failures' on Trump shooting
Speed Read Two new reports detail security breakdowns that led to attempts on the president's life