Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.


Many hoped that Trump and his followers wouldn’t exploit this assassination attempt to blame Democrats for political violence in America, but social media is already aflame with such memes. Republican efforts now seem directed at getting the media to condemn Democrats whenever they highlight the GOP's association with violence.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

From Jan. 6 to Trump's jokes about the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi to his "very fine people" comment in Charlottesville, the pattern is clear. Having secured the fervent support of the GOP base in the wake of this attempt on his life, his new aim might be to attract swing voters by sounding reasonable. Such a strategy could also aid the GOP in countering Biden's critiques of Trump’s decade-long promotion of violence.

However, the question remains: Will the media join in condemning Democrats for normal campaign rhetoric while normalizing Trump's violent past? And will Biden and his campaign, along with progressive media, be silenced by the GOP's phony calls to "tone down the rhetoric"? The stakes in this political theater are high, and the fallout will shape the nation’s discourse.

The challenge lies in whether Biden and progressive media will bow to GOP pressure to temper their campaign rhetoric while Trump’s own history of incendiary language is normalized. The ongoing focus on Trump, with all its implications, highlights his extremism, legal issues and the far-right agenda outlined in Project 2025, a policy blueprint he has struggled to distance himself from. Democrats hope that this scrutiny might sway swing voters away from him.

The attempt on Trump's life reinforces his self-portrayal as a victim, a narrative he has cultivated since his 2020 re-election loss. He has consistently framed his legal battles as partisan attacks and even suggested that the 2022 FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was a covert assassination attempt.

Trump’s base remains fiercely reactive to any perceived threats against him. Following his May conviction on felony charges in New York, his supporters called for violence against jurors and judges, and even riots. Similarly, at a recent rally, journalists reported aggressive behavior from Trump’s supporters, including threats, taunts and attempts to breach the media area. This volatile reaction underscores the dangerous climate surrounding Trump, where every incident is amplified into a political weapon, further fueling divisions in American politics.

Trump's reliance on conspiracy theories and divisive rhetoric has been a hallmark of his political strategy. However, in the wake of the recent shooting, it remains uncertain whether he will deter his base from such inflammatory tactics. This incident presents Trump with a crucial opportunity to prioritize national peace and security over personal ambition. A near-death experience might compel a shift in his approach, urging him to foster a more measured tone.

The potential consequences of Trump's response are significant. If he continues to incite his supporters, the nation could face increasingly dangerous repercussions. We've already witnessed the destructive impact of his rhetoric, as seen with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot driven by fabricated claims of victimization. The recent shooting could herald a period of heightened peril if Trump does not moderate his influence. His reaction will be pivotal in determining whether this troubling trend towards political violence will escalate further or be curtailed.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric on the right has significantly contributed to the rise in violent acts. The attempted assassination could further inflame the radicalism that has been brewing. Saturday’s shooting was a close call with tragedy, narrowly avoiding what could have been one of the darkest days in American history. This incident marks a critical inflection point in the presidential race and the broader political climate.

It is highly likely that Trump will seize the recent assassination attempt as a prime political opportunity rather than a moment for genuine reflection. Instead of introspection, Trump will likely indulge his deep-seated self-image, turning to his own brand of heroism rather than any spiritual or moral reconsideration. Rather than seeking solace in religious texts, he may instead look to his persona as a larger-than-life figure, impervious to bullets and criticism alike.

Trump’s response is expected to exacerbate his existing rhetoric, doubling down on divisive narratives and conspiracies. By pandering to his evangelical base, he is poised to frame the attack as a testament to his divine protection, portraying himself as a heroic savior against alleged Democratic enemies. This manipulation of religious symbolism to bolster his position will only deepen the polarization within American politics.

His supporters will rally around this constructed martyrdom, elevating him to a mythic status that aligns with his grandiose self-image, while his advisors work to fine-tune this narrative to maximize political gain. This approach highlights a troubling trend of exploiting personal crises for political leverage.

Read More

Flag of Ukraine alongside flag of United States

Flags of Ukraine and the United States

Alex Wong/Getty Images

In swing states, D’s and R’s agree U.S. should continue aid to Ukraine

Amid debates about U.S. international engagement, a new public consultation survey conducted in six swing states by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found widespread bipartisan support for the United States continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support the U.S. upholding the principle of collective security by helping to protect nations that are under attack; continuing to be a member of NATO; and continuing to abide by the longstanding international ban on nuclear testing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red and blue fingers pointing at each other
PM Images/Getty Images

Maybe America needs a mom to call a time out

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

All of us have had that moment. An innocent comment over coffee with a friend, at a family dinner or while riding an elevator with a coworker. Everyone is at edge over politics. Nerves are rubbed raw. Civility has seemingly vanished.

When asked to rate the level of political division in the country on a scale of 0-100, where 0 is no division and 100 is the edge of a civil war, the mean response is 71, according to the Georgetown University Institute of Public Service. A similar share of Americans tell Pew they worry about political disagreements triggering more violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ben Klutsey

Our views on the issues haven't changed that much over the past several decades. If anything, we’ve moved a little bit closer to each other. But the way we feel about each other has changed over time," said Ben Klutsey, director of the program on pluralism and civil exchange at the Mercatus Center.

Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘A truly pluralistic society has both inclusion and dissent’: A conversation with Ben Klutsey

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the sixth in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

The documentary film “Undivide Us” brings together Americans from across the political spectrum for conversations about abortion, immigration, guns and other controversial issues. According to Ben Klutsey, who helped facilitate the conversations, “Participants came in expecting shouting matches, but they ended up exchanging phone numbers and wanting to stay connected because they found each other to be incredibly interesting. People are not as polarized as we think they are when we look at our screens and social media.”

This could also serve as a mission statement for Klutsey, who directs the program on pluralism and civil exchange at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian research center housed at George Mason University. At Mercatus, Klutsey is attempting to build a community of students and scholars who can exchange ideas and coexist with one another peacefully despite their political differences. Klutsey also regularly interviews leading thinkers about liberalism for the online journal Discourse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Homeless encampment

Views on how to deal with the homeless encampments that have cropped up across California in recent years, such as this one in Los Angeles in July, don’t fall neatly along party lines.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Local elections are less partisan because voters will cross party lines when issues hit close to home

Lascher is a professor of public policy and administration at California State University, Sacramento. Adams is a professor of political science at San Diego State University. Martin is an associate professor of political science at California State University, Sacramento.

Hand-wringing over American politics commonly focuses on the sharp and growing divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

Accumulating evidence indicates that voters are less likely than ever to split their ticket or vote for candidates from different parties in presidential or congressional races. Polarization over hot-button issues has spiked, as has animosity toward members of the opposite party.

Research also shows that state-level political contests have become more partisan. Results for state-level electoral contests more closely mirror presidential election results than they once did.

Keep ReadingShow less
Andrew Yang

The Forward Party, founded by Andrew Yang, "will greatly increase the overall health of our democracy while helping to put the power back into the hands of voters," writes Copenhaver.

Marco Bello/Getty Images

Identifying division is easy; finding points of agreement is difficult

Copenhaver, a former mayor of Augusta, Ga., hosts “The Changemaker Podcast and is a founding partner of Starts With Us.

Negative campaigning is increasing in volume and nastiness every election cycle. Campaigns are based on a “divide and conquer” strategy, pitting citizens against each other. If you ask most political operatives why this is the case, they’ll tell you it’s because it works. It drives donations, volunteer engagement and turnout. And while I won’t debate that it works, it’s not the only approach that works.

Keep ReadingShow less