By Matthew Hayward
In a time when discussions of civil unrest and even civil war permeate the national conversation, on July 8, 2024, President Joe Biden made a statement to his donors that has since sparked significant controversy: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye." This remark, coming from the highest office in the land, raises serious concerns about the impact of such language on an already tense political environment.
With the nation still reeling from January 6th, where Trump has been alleged to have incited an insurrection, and the ongoing heated debates about election integrity, Biden's words fanned the flames of division.
Given Biden's access to intelligence from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which are acutely aware of the effects of political radicalization, it cannot be argued that Biden was unaware his comments could be interpreted literally, especially when his supporters and the liberal media regularly quote Trump out of context alleging he was being literal about all sorts of hyperbolic statements.
For example, Trump's comment about being a dictator for a day was clearly a joke, yet it has been taken out of context by critics to suggest that he genuinely harbors authoritarian ambitions. Similarly, during a White House coronavirus task force briefing on April 23, 2020, Trump suggested that disinfectants could potentially be used to treat COVID-19, which was widely misinterpreted as a serious recommendation for people to inject bleach. In both cases, only those deeply entrenched in partisan narratives would take these comments at face value.
Historically, we've seen the power of presidential rhetoric to either calm or inflame public sentiment. From FDR's fireside chats that reassured a nation during the Great Depression to the divisive speeches that have occasionally emerged in recent years, the spoken word from the Oval Office holds immense sway. In Biden's case, his comment about Trump could only exacerbate tensions and incite individuals already on edge.
The consistent rhetoric from Biden and other prominent political leaders about "democracy being on the ballot" further heightens this risk. When the narrative suggests that a political opponent is a direct threat to the nation's democratic fabric, it can motivate individuals to take extreme actions, believing they are defending their country from an existential threat.
The legal landscape adds another layer of complexity. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024, has granted broad immunity to Presidents for their official acts. This decision, while primarily focused on shielding former President Trump from prosecution for actions during his tenure, extends to all sitting presidents, including Biden. This means that even if Biden's words were found to incite violence, the immunity conferred by this ruling could protect him from legal consequences.
This situation underscores a broader issue about the boundaries of presidential speech and the responsibilities that come with such a powerful platform. Should it be legal to call for your opponent to be put in the crosshair, easily taken out of context to be associated with assassination, similar to how the mob works, not ordering hits but instead just telling people to take care of their problems?
Sources:
Research on political rhetoric and radicalization
USA PATRIOT Act and its implications
Comments
Post a Comment