Maybe all political rhetoric has the potential to incite violence but it’s objectively not true that all of it has the same potential. Every attempt to “both sides” the question of incitement to political violence references James Hodgkinson for the simple reason that there really aren’t many other examples of this kind of violence from the left. If there are, please name another.
The shootings at the congressional baseball practice were almost two years ago and there haven’t been any similar attacks since, whereas the Tree of Life and MAGA bomber happened within a month’s time from each other. Then there’s also the thwarted plot to bomb an apartment complex housing Somali refugees carried out by pro-Trump militia members, including a contractor who had submitted a bid to “build the wall.” Evaluating the issue quantitatively, there are simply a lot more instances of political violence on the right—in 2018 all extremist murders committed in the US were done by the far-right—and any discussion of the issue needs to interrogate the reason for this disparity.
Furthermore, a more direct line can be drawn between Trump’s rhetoric and violence against minorities. You don’t see random Bernie supporters all over the country screaming his name as they attack or harass conservatives. Though it might sound hyperbolic, saying Republican policy—namely shredding the social safety net and denying people access to health care—will kill people is true in a way “immigrants are criminal rapists” is not. Harshly criticizing people who have the power to affect all of our lives isn’t the same as demonizing the powerless and marginalized, and the outcome is obviously different.
I feel like you’re so close to getting it though, with your last statement: “If refugees are as big a threat as Trump says — if they are truly dangerous “invaders” — it is not entirely illogical to conclude that attacking them and their allies is an act of desperate self defense.”
As we saw with the Christchurch massacre, ideas like “white genocide” and the “great replacement” are a mass delusion taken as fact by the far-right, and it doesn’t really help to have them validated by powerful politicians. Trump was referenced by name in Tarrant’s manifesto and he also mentioned the 14 words, which Rep. Steve King has paraphrased in the past. To imply that all political rhetoric has the same potential to incite violence also overlooks the fact that the far-right and the far-left have very different goals, the former being genocide and the latter being economic justice.
In my recent piece on the Christchurch shootings, I made the argument that “lone wolf” acts of mass murder are effectively a shortcut to achieving a desired political program of genocide on a small scale. A socialist can’t go on a healthcare rampage, but any given member of the far-right can go out and kill black and brown people, then feel like they’re “part of the (final) solution.”
