Keystone-SDA | Freitag, 01. November 2024
In the final stretch of the US presidential election campaign, Republican Donald Trump is causing a stir by spreading violent fashion about one of his biggest critics. At a campaign event in the state of Arizona, Trump talked about letting his opponent Liz Cheney watch nine “rifle barrels” fired during a firefight. The Republican presidential candidate argued that Cheney himself is quick to find solutions to conflicts in combat, so he wants to experience himself with an army in combat.
A familiar pattern in a complex situation
Trump is known for insulting, mocking and verbally attacking his political opponents. He regularly uses hateful language and is a master of ambiguity to deliberately cause confusion – for example, making statements that glorify violence and then denying any violation of boundaries. The statement about Cheney just a few days before the presidential election on Tuesday stands out even by his standards.
In addition, it comes at a time when there are already great fears that the election could involve political violence. Trump himself was the victim of an assassination attempt during the election campaign, in which he was slightly injured. The mood in the US is extremely tense.
Former Republican Senator Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, is one of Trump’s toughest critics within the party. Her resistance to the former president cost her re-election to the House of Representatives in 2022, as Trump strongly opposed her during the election campaign and pulled all kinds of strings. Cheney has not let up on her criticism since then, but she is now supporting Trump’s Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris, in the election campaign and has already appeared with her many times.
During an appearance in Glendale, Arizona, Trump called Cheney a ”radical warmonger” and then suggested putting her in a situation where she would be ”standing with a gun and nine barrels of guns firing at her.” Then he continued, “Let’s see how she feels with the guns pointed in her face.” Politicians like them are the consequences when they sit in their nice buildings in Washington and decide to send 10,000 soldiers “into the mouth of the enemy,” continued Trump.
Liz Cheney shared an excerpt from the video on the X platform and wrote: “This is how dictators destroy free nations. Those who speak against them are threatened with death.” Trump called her a “small, vengeful, cruel, unstable man” who wanted to be a tyrant. She also again called for Harris to be elected with the hashtag “#VoteKamala”.
Harris’ campaign team also aired a quote on X with Trump’s two worst comments about Cheney. Trump’s team then accused the Harris campaign of taking the statement out of context. This is a well-known strategy after provocative statements by the former president.
Trump’s comments came during a conversation with right-wing moderator Tucker Carlson. Regarding his political opponents, the Republican spoke again of the “enemy within” and the “enemy of the people”.
After Trump survived an assassination attempt in July — the bullet pierced his ear — some Republican politicians blamed Democratic rhetoric that portrayed him as a threat to democracy. Trump himself is regularly dealing with his opponents. In Arizona, he told Harris she was “stupid as a rock” and described Democrats as a threat to democracy.
Trump also spread the story once again - although now more strongly than ever - that an election victory could only be won by fraud. “The only thing we can stop is fraud,” the former president said. He claimed to be ahead in all seven battleground states – the so-called swing states that will decide the election. Surveys don’t show this – but overall they show a neck and neck race. Trump also claimed without any evidence that various fraud attempts had already been discovered.
Even before the 2020 election, which the incumbent lost to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump relentlessly spread such representations. After the vote, he claimed that the Democrats defeated him through large-scale voter fraud. However, dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign have failed in the courts. There was never any evidence of irregularities that would have changed the outcome of the vote. Trump is still sticking to his story.
His campaign against the election result came to an end on January 6, 2021 when his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington, seat of the US Congress. Earlier that day, Trump incited his supporters with claims of election fraud and, among other things, called on them to march to the Capitol and fight “like hell.”
Democratic presidential candidate Harris is trying to create the biggest possible contrast to Trump in the final stretch of the campaign. The former president wants to separate Americans, she said at a rally. But she relies on unity: “We have much more in common.” Regarding Trump’s recent statement that he would protect women “whether women like it or not,” she said the Republican is someone who doesn’t respect women’s freedom.
Time.news Interview: The Implications of Rising Political Rhetoric in the U.S.
Editor: Good day, everyone, and welcome to Time.news. I’m your host, and today we have a special guest with us, Dr. Emily Schaffer, a political analyst and expert on political rhetoric and its effects on societal tensions. Dr. Schaffer, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Schaffer: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to discuss this critical topic with you!
Editor: Let’s jump right into it. We’ve seen a significant amount of incendiary rhetoric in U.S. politics lately, particularly fromDonald Trump. His recent comments about Liz Cheney, where he suggested a violent scenario involving her, have sparked outrage. What is your take on this kind of language and its potential impact on political discourse?
Dr. Schaffer: Trump’s comments are indicative of a broader trend where political figures utilize violent imagery to rally their base and dismiss their opponents. This kind of rhetoric not only undermines civil discourse but also raises the stakes for political engagement in dangerous ways. When leaders suggest violence, even in metaphorical terms, it can normalize aggressive behavior and escalate tensions among supporters.
Editor: You mention normalization. Can you elaborate on how such rhetoric affects the behavior and attitudes of the public, especially in a polarized environment?
Dr. Schaffer: Absolutely. When political leaders use violent language, they inadvertently signal to their followers that aggressive behavior is acceptable. In Trump’s case, referring to Cheney as a “radical warmonger” and suggesting she should be subjected to threats contributes to a climate of fear and hostility. This aligns with his ongoing portrayal of opponents as “enemies,” which can create a sense of legitimacy around violence as a form of political expression.
Editor: That’s an important point. Trump himself has been the target of violence and has previously been implicated in claims of inciting it. How does his own experience influence the way he communicates about his opponents?
Dr. Schaffer: Trump’s history shapes his perspective significantly. After surviving an assassination attempt, his rhetoric may come from a place of heightened paranoia and defensiveness. However, instead of promoting a unifying or de-escalatory message, he tends to project his fear onto others, casting his opponents as threats to democracy. This cyclical pattern can deepen divisions and justify greater aggression in political conflicts.
Editor: In your view, how should the public, particularly voters, respond to this kind of rhetoric?
Dr. Schaffer: Critical engagement is essential. Voters need to recognize the implications of such language and question the motivations behind it. Educating oneself about political discourse and actively seeking more constructive avenues for debate can help counterbalance this trend. Support for candidates who prioritize respectful dialogue and policies over inflammatory rhetoric will be crucial in steering political culture back toward civility.
Editor: Liz Cheney’s response to Trump’s comments, calling out his behavior as that of a dictator, also raises an interesting angle. How does this dynamic play out within the Republican Party, especially with Cheney supporting Kamala Harris?
Dr. Schaffer: Cheney’s stance illustrates a significant fracture within the Republican Party. While traditional Republicans may value civility and democratic norms, Trump’s populist approach has attracted a faction that thrives on confrontation. Cheney’s support for Harris shows a cross-party alliance against authoritarian tendencies, but it also complicates the narrative of party loyalty. This may indicate a shift where ideological values could prevail over party affiliation in the face of perceived threats to democracy.
Editor: It sounds like we’re at a crucial juncture in political history. With upcoming elections, what should we watch for as we move forward?
Dr. Schaffer: I think we should closely monitor rhetoric and its reception. Are candidates doubling down on divisive or violent language? How are voters reacting? Moreover, we need to keep an eye on grassroots movements and whether they advocate for safe and respectful discourse. This will play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape and potentially curbing the rise of extreme rhetoric.
Editor: Dr. Schaffer, thank you for your insights today. It’s clear that the implications of political rhetoric extend far beyond mere words; they shape our societal values and democratic processes.
Dr. Schaffer: Thank you for having me. It’s a vital conversation that we need to keep having!
Editor: And thank you to our audience for joining us. Stay tuned for more discussions on important topics affecting our world today.