Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The language of violence

American flag hanging amid spotlights

The FBI, ATF and other law enforcement agencies work at the crime scene where a gunman attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump on July 13.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

Real violence erupted at a presidential campaign rally on Saturday night. Rare though it was, it was still a sickening sight.

Tragically, metaphorical violence as part of campaign speeches is not at all rare. Democrats and Republicans — Biden and Trump, Harris and Haley, DeSantis and Kennedy, you name it — throw around allusions to violence as if we are currently engaged in some domestic incursion.


How often have we heard presidential candidates exclaim, “We are fighting for the soul of America” or battling “the opposition’s assault on democracy”? How frequently have our leaders implored us to “wage war against the foes of women’s freedom” or in defense of “the innocent life of an unborn child”? Of course, my favorite metaphor du jour is the “weaponization” of institutions and actions. Republicans talk of the weaponization of America’s legal system and of the left’s “woke” principles, while Democrats talk of the weaponization of impeachment efforts and family laptops. It has to stop.

The language of violence is not new to American politics. But it has taken on heightened consequences because of our current polarized state. Leaders on both sides of the aisle (along with the media) are simply too nonchalant about encouraging their followers to “fight, fight, fight.” The world feels somehow different today than when Ronald Reagan would occasionally invoke the battle metaphor (remember the “war on drugs”?) or when Bill Clinton wouldreference the “fight for farmers and the fight for accessible health care.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Survey after survey shows that Americans are exhausted. The constant exposure to political intransigence and partisan bickering has drained our emotional reserves. It has also damaged Americans' faith in the government, their confidence in its leaders and our general sense of national pride.

Make no mistake: There should be no blaming the victim here. What happened to Donald Trump in Butler, Pa., is tragic and indefensible. A chorus of lawmakers past and present have condemned the actions of this apparently lone gunman. Many have echoed President Joe Biden’s sentiment that “there is no place in America for this kind of violence.” Agreed. But, equally, there should be no place in American politics for the sort of violent language that so easily passes the lips of those in power.

My plea to politicians on both the left and the right is to erase the violent vernacular from your messaging. Talk of restoring America to a progressive vision or a conservative ideal, not of destroying the opposite party. Speak of rebuilding the country to its rightful standing as the paragon of liberty, freedom, equality and justice, not of razing all policies initiated by representatives from across the aisle. Instead of the impulse to vilify, tell of your plans for renewal and rebirth, as Lincoln did. And FDR, and Johnson, and Reagan, and Obama.

Americans are fortunate. We inhabit a polity where liberty is valued above all else. The First Amendment to the Constitution safeguards these candidates and their messages. It should. Their remarks are rightly recognized as political speech, the loftiest and most revered variety of free expression. But as with all protected speech, the freedom to express oneself is not equivalent to the moral necessity to say anything that comes to mind. In other words, because some messages are protected does not mean they should be uttered. This is not a case of “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Surely, we can still get our most complex, nuanced and inspirational points across with a far less violent tone.

Democrats and Republicans alike should come together in prayer for Donald Trump’s swift and full recovery. Once that’s assured, we should renew the campaign for the presidency. Let it be vigorous, spirited, courageous and ardent. But, please, please let it also be rhetorically peaceful.

Read More

Together, We Must Repair a “House Divided”

A wooden cut-out of a home.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

Together, We Must Repair a “House Divided”

“My Father’s house has many rooms…” John 14:2-3

Lately, I’ve been seeing everything through a political lens whether I want to or not. So, it didn’t surprise me that a Biblical verse at a recent memorial service got me thinking about then-Senator Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 speech about a “House Divided.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Children are Collateral Damage of the Trump Agenda

A child holding an adult's hand.

Getty Images, Fisher Litwin

Children are Collateral Damage of the Trump Agenda

President Donald Trump has claimed a mandate following his electoral victory, using it to justify “bold and profound change.” However, there is one substantial group of Americans who didn’t cast a single vote for the president—or any Republicans for that matter. They didn’t vote for any Democrats either. Yet, they will feel the impact of these changes for decades to come: Children.

Children comprise one-fifth of the United States population, their success will determine the success of our country in the future, yet they are often forgotten stakeholders in the political process. Children have no control over the circumstances they are born into, nor do they have much opportunity to change them. Lacking representation and the funds to lobby elected officials, children must rely on adults to ensure they are protected, supported, and given what they need to thrive. But more and more, policy decisions are harming children as their needs are overlooked by politicians who fail to consider the collateral damage of unrelated agendas. The consequences will be profound and enduring. Fortunately, there’s a simple and politically strategic remedy: prioritize children.

Keep ReadingShow less
Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland releases a new survey, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.

Pexels, Tima Miroshnichenko

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the U.S. should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid—the current amount the U.S. spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.

Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move.

Keep ReadingShow less
Let America Vote

An individual submitting their vote into a ballot box.

Getty Images / SimpleImages

Let America Vote

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced the Let America Vote Act, aiming to strengthen electoral integrity and inclusivity. Spearheaded by Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Jared Golden (D-ME), and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), this legislation ensures that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any taxpayer-funded election for public office shall not be denied or abridged on the grounds of political party affiliation or lack thereof. Specifically, the act:

The legislation addresses two key principles in the continued fight for election reform and integrity:

Keep ReadingShow less