TRUMP’S ‘VIOLENT RHETORIC’ REQUIRES ‘CLOSE MONITORING,’ SAY POLITICAL SCIENTISTS

Two political scientists from UCLA, Nikita Savin and Daniel Treisman, have raised concerns about the increasing use of violent and inflammatory rhetoric by former President Donald Trump. According to their research, Trump’s political messaging has grown more aggressive over the years, particularly since he first entered the national political scene. The scholars argue that such rhetoric, when coming from a prominent political figure, can have significant consequences on the political landscape and public discourse in the United States.

In their study, Savin and Treisman conducted a detailed comparison of speeches and public statements made by Trump, focusing particularly on how his language evolved over time. They compared his speeches to those of former President Barack Obama, whose rhetoric they found to be consistently more measured. Obama’s speeches tended to avoid inflammatory language, focusing instead on diplomacy and unity, even when addressing controversial or divisive topics. This contrast between the two leaders’ communication styles has become a focal point of the researchers’ analysis.

The researchers found that Trump’s rhetoric has progressively leaned toward violence, with his language often framed in terms of conflict and aggression. This, they argue, reflects a broader shift in how political leaders may engage with their supporters and opponents. Trump’s speeches have frequently included calls to fight against perceived enemies, both political and cultural, which the researchers believe could fuel divisions within society.

Savin and Treisman caution that rhetoric of this nature may have a lasting impact on political discourse. They suggest that when political leaders use language that frames their opponents as enemies or threats, it can lead to a more polarized political environment. This polarization, in turn, could deepen divisions between different segments of the population, making compromise and cooperation more difficult to achieve.

One of the key comparisons in the study is between Trump’s rhetoric and that of Joe Biden, his Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential election. The researchers noted that Biden’s language, while occasionally forceful, tends to focus on themes of unity, recovery, and rebuilding. They argue that this type of messaging, though less inflammatory, still serves to energize a political base, but in a way that promotes collective action rather than conflict.

Another significant comparison made in the study is between Trump and Hillary Clinton, who ran against Trump in the 2016 election. Clinton’s rhetoric was found to be less aggressive than Trump’s, though she did face criticism for her perceived lack of emotional connection with voters. Interestingly, the researchers pointed out that Clinton’s language was often constrained by stereotypes surrounding women in leadership roles, which may have affected her ability to use stronger language without backlash.

Savin and Treisman suggest that Trump’s rise in violent rhetoric could be part of a broader trend in populist politics, both in the United States and globally. Populist leaders often use language that paints the political landscape in stark, black-and-white terms, framing themselves as champions of the people and their opponents as enemies. This kind of language, they argue, may resonate with voters who feel marginalized or disillusioned with traditional political institutions.

The political scientists also highlight the potential dangers of normalizing violent rhetoric in political discourse. When political leaders use this kind of language regularly, it can lower the threshold for what is considered acceptable in public speech. This, in turn, could encourage other political figures to adopt similar language, leading to an overall escalation in political tensions.

Despite the clear concerns raised in their research, Savin and Treisman also acknowledge the challenges of regulating or monitoring political rhetoric. They argue that while free speech is a fundamental right, there should be careful consideration of how violent or inflammatory language might affect the political climate. Close observation of political figures’ rhetoric could help to identify when speech crosses a line into incitement or presents risks to social stability.

In conclusion, Savin and Treisman’s research calls for greater scrutiny of the language used by political leaders, particularly those with large platforms and influence. While free speech is an important democratic principle, the potential consequences of violent rhetoric should not be ignored. Political scientists and the public alike should pay attention to how this language shapes political discourse and contributes to the broader political environment.

COMMENTARY:

Criticism of the so-called “political scientists” in the article seems warranted, especially when considering the biased nature of their conclusions. Labeling Trump’s rhetoric as “violent” without properly addressing the context or acknowledging similar behavior on the left demonstrates a clear lack of objectivity. These scholars appear to be cherry-picking examples to fit a preconceived narrative rather than presenting a fair and balanced analysis. It’s not unusual for political discourse to become heated, especially during contentious periods, but focusing almost exclusively on Trump while ignoring violent rhetoric from the other side exposes their bias.

One major flaw in their argument is the failure to acknowledge the numerous instances where left-wing activists or Democratic sympathizers have engaged in actual violence. While Trump may have employed strong, forceful language, there is a clear distinction between rhetoric and action. On the other hand, real violence has occurred at the hands of individuals on the left, from Antifa riots to attempts on conservative politicians’ lives, such as the near-fatal shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. This crucial context is conspicuously missing from their so-called “research.”

Moreover, if we look at recent history, many of the most violent outbursts have come from individuals who align with or sympathize with progressive movements. The 2020 riots that ravaged cities across America were largely fueled by extreme left-wing rhetoric and resulted in billions of dollars in property damage and numerous deaths. Yet, these scholars seem to turn a blind eye to that reality while painting Trump as the instigator of division. It’s not only selective, but intellectually dishonest.

These political scientists conveniently overlook the fact that Democrats have also used aggressive language when it suited their political objectives. Figures like Maxine Waters and other Democratic politicians have openly called for confrontations with political opponents, encouraging their supporters to get in people’s faces. This rhetoric is far more direct and inflammatory than anything Trump has said. Yet, there is no mention of this in the analysis, making it clear that the scholars are not interested in a balanced examination of political rhetoric.

Furthermore, their study seems to be part of a broader effort to vilify Trump and his supporters while portraying Democrats as somehow above reproach. The scholars imply that strong language from Trump equates to incitement, but there is no clear evidence that his words led to widespread violence. In fact, many of Trump’s supporters have been on the receiving end of physical attacks and harassment, often with little attention from the media or academia. This selective outrage only further discredits their conclusions.

Another glaring omission in their work is the double standard applied to populist rhetoric. They criticize Trump’s combative tone but fail to apply the same scrutiny to left-wing populist movements. Leaders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have also employed divisive rhetoric, often framing their political opponents as corrupt enemies of the people. Yet, these scholars seem uninterested in holding them to the same standard, revealing a clear ideological bias in their assessment.

If these political scientists were truly concerned about violent rhetoric, they would be calling for a broader evaluation of language across the political spectrum. Instead, they focus narrowly on Trump, ignoring the fact that political discourse in America has grown more intense on all sides. To single out Trump without holding Democrats accountable for their own inflammatory language is not only unfair but also undermines the credibility of their work.

By placing the blame squarely on Trump, they absolve Democrats of their role in escalating tensions, which paints a skewed picture of the current political climate. The narrative that Trump is responsible for divisions in America is simplistic and ignores the deeper causes of political polarization. It’s clear these scholars are more interested in promoting a partisan agenda than offering any real insight into how political discourse has changed over the years.

In conclusion, the biased framing of Trump’s rhetoric as uniquely dangerous, while giving Democrats a free pass, reveals the shallow analysis presented by these so-called political scientists. If their goal was to offer a nuanced understanding of the political climate, they have failed miserably. Their work seems less like objective research and more like an attempt to advance a narrative that fits their ideological preferences. Until they acknowledge the full spectrum of political rhetoric and its consequences, their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ultimately, political rhetoric from all sides should be scrutinized, but selectively targeting one side while ignoring the transgressions of the other does little to foster understanding or reduce tensions. These scholars would do well to focus on the real causes of violence, which often stem from actions rather than words, and not continue pushing the idea that Trump alone is responsible for America’s current political divisions.

ARTICLE:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/trump-violent-rhetoric-needs-close-monitoring-political-scientists/