The Rhetoric Fueling Political Violence in the US
“A little kid runs in talking about there’s an active shooter at Walmart,” Glendon Oakley told NBC News affiliate KTSM, recounting what happened during the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas. On August 3, 2019, Patrick Wood Crusius started shooting at civilians in Walmart, killing 23 and injuring 22. In his manifesto, he listed his motive as “a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” Describing undocumented immigrants crossing the border illegally as an “invasion” is a right-wing talking point. During his RNC speech on July 18, 2019, Donald Trump admitted calling undocumented immigrants illegally crossing the border an “invasion.” This is just one example of mass shootings in the past decade motivated by far-right ideologies. Understanding motivation is crucial because it helps identify who is spreading this rhetoric. The far-left and far-right both engage in and endorse violence, but their motivations are fundamentally different. However, bigotry acts as a catalyst for both.
Violence is wrong on all fronts, but it’s important to examine the differing motivations behind far-left and far-right violence. Far-left violence often stems from a desire to protect rights, the environment, address racial injustices, and achieve equal rights. In contrast, far-right violence is frequently driven by white supremacy, anti-immigration sentiments, anti-Semitism, and efforts to hinder rights and prevent non-white individuals from succeeding. This is not just about the violence itself but the rhetoric fueling it. We need to address why far-right politics often lead to racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination that undermine a just and fair society.
The rate of violence among the far-right is significantly higher than that of the left. According to START director William Braniff, who testified to the Congressional Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2019, “Among domestic terrorists, violent far-right terrorists are by far the most numerous, lethal, and criminally active. Over the last several decades, they are responsible for more: failed plots; successful plots; pursuits of chemical or biological weapons; homicide events; and illicit financial schemes than international terrorists, including HVEs.” The Global Terrorist Database (GTD), along with the FBI and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, supports this conclusion. Far-right extremism has been on the rise since 2013, and in 2018, it became the highest rate of terrorism in the US. According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2022 and 2023, “All the extremist-related murders in 2022 were committed by right-wing extremists of various kinds.” This is not to say that far-left extremism doesn’t engage in violence — it does — but it is much less prevalent. This distinction is important, especially in light of the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, as the right downplays their role in political violence.
For the past eight years, right-wing rhetoric has been marked by prejudice, discrimination, and endorsement of violence. Trump’s rhetoric has been linked to the second largest spike in hate crimes, only surpassed by the aftermath of 9/11, and has contributed to an increase in expressions of prejudice among his supporters. Trump has also endorsed violence at his rallies. At a 2016 campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump was informed by his security team that people might be throwing tomatoes, and he responded by saying, “knock the crap out of them, would you?” and promised to “pay for the legal fees.” At another rally in Las Vegas, after having a protester escorted out, Trump reminisced about how people used to be “carried out on a stretcher, folks.” The right argues that calling Trump a dictator creates an extreme image that can lead to violence, but Trump himself suggested a dictatorial role in an interview with Sean Hannity. His rhetoric was alarming to many, especially after he referred to wanting to “root out” liberals like “vermin” a few months prior. Dehumanizing groups by calling them “vermin” is a tactic from the authoritarian playbook. Trump also dehumanized immigrants by saying they were “poisoning the blood of our country.” Many compare Trump to Hitler, and while some view this as a stretch, his description of immigrants as blood poison is strikingly similar to Hitler’s rhetoric in Mein Kampf, where he said, “All the great civilizations of the past decayed because the originally creative race died out, as a result of poisoning of the blood.” During a rally, when discussing Hillary Clinton, Trump said that when she was selecting judges, “there’s nothing you can do,” and suggested that “Second Amendment people” could take action. In another tweet about the George Floyd Protests, trump said in regard to the looting, “when the looting starts the shooting starts.” If someone is looting, even though it’s a crime, as long as they don’t have a gun, or are trying to harm the police, there should be no reason to use a gun. This rhetoric, which often blurs the line between political discourse and incitement to violence, contributes to an environment where such extremist actions are not only tolerated but, in some cases, encouraged.
Regarding prejudice and discrimination, Trump has been overtly prejudiced. During his 2016 campaign, he claimed Mexico was bringing “drugs,” “crime,” and “rapists.” In July 2017, Trump tweeted about banning transgender individuals from serving “in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” He also called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” despite national security experts indicating that the original seven nations were not threats. During the recent debate between Trump and Biden, Trump referred to “black jobs,” creating controversy over the meaning of such terms. What are “black jobs”? What are “white jobs”? Is Trump implying that certain jobs are designated for specific races? Trump also tweeted about Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), telling them to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” even though three out of four were born in the US. An entire article could be written on Trump’s inflammatory statements, yet some still believe he has not created an atmosphere of increased social tension.
Bigoted rhetoric can incite violence and lead to civil unrest by reinforcing and perpetuating oppressive systems and ideologies. Such rhetoric fosters an environment of hostility and discrimination, exacerbating social tensions and contributing to societal conflict. While far-left violence exists, it often arises as a reaction to systemic injustices. In contrast, far-right rhetoric actively perpetuates discrimination and hinders progress toward a just society. The scale and impact of this rhetoric, fostering bigotry and exclusion, far outweigh the violence associated with far-left movements. Addressing the harmful effects of such rhetoric is essential for fostering true equality and justice.
In conclusion, bigotry serves as the catalyst for both left-wing and right-wing violence. The far-right uses violence to propagate its bigoted views, while far-left violence often arises as an attempt to counteract and prevent this bigotry.
