Ending Violent Rhetoric: A Call for True Consistency

The current state of American politics is alarming, to say the least. Divisive rhetoric has reached new heights, and unfortunately, violent language is becoming an all-too-common feature of our national discourse. The recent calls from Donald Trump’s campaign to “end violent rhetoric” stand as a surprising development. It’s a message I wholeheartedly support. After all, violent language—regardless of who it's coming from—has no place in a functioning democracy. However, as I reflect on this call, I can’t help but see a glaring double standard.

For years, the Trump campaign and his supporters have been some of the loudest purveyors of inflammatory, divisive, and, yes, violent rhetoric. It was only a few years ago when chants of “Lock her up” dominated his rallies, or when he suggested “Second Amendment people” could deal with his political opponents. We’ve heard him encourage violence in ways subtle and overt. These instances have undoubtedly contributed to a toxic political climate. So, while I welcome the Trump campaign’s sudden realization that violent rhetoric is harmful, it’s hard not to notice that this message is emerging when the target of violence appears to be them.

Let’s be honest: this selective approach to condemning violent rhetoric does more harm than good. It's not enough to decry threats or incitements of violence only when they’re directed at your political side. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard—one that is consistent, unwavering, and principled. If we are going to condemn violent rhetoric, we must do so across the board, no matter who the target is or which side of the political spectrum it’s coming from.

Political leaders have a unique responsibility to shape the tone of public discourse. When we, as elected officials, fail to call out harmful rhetoric consistently, we implicitly condone it. When we are silent about it, we empower it. When we selectively condemn it, we erode the public's trust in our sincerity and contribute to the cynical belief that politics is nothing more than tribalism.

Let me be clear: all violent rhetoric must cease, regardless of who is wielding it. The issue here is not about protecting one party or person from threats; it’s about protecting the integrity of our political system and safeguarding our democracy. We’ve seen how words can inspire real-world violence—from the events of January 6th to the threats aimed at election workers, journalists, and public officials. Words matter. They fuel actions, and when those actions turn violent, the damage is irreparable.

What is violent rhetoric? Similar to the definition of pornography “you know it when you see it,” the same holds true. Violent rhetoric is not saying Trump is a “threat to democracy,” nor is it when Trump says Kamala “will open the borders wide open.” We have to leave room for passionate discourse, but that can, and sometimes does, cross a line. We must also be cognizant of how these words can be perceived.

It is up to all of us—Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike—to foster an environment where disagreements are settled through debate and dialogue, not threats and intimidation. That requires each of us to take a hard look at our own rhetoric and ensure we’re not contributing to a culture of violence, whether implicitly or explicitly.

In the end, the question we need to ask ourselves is simple: do we truly want to end violent rhetoric, or do we just want to protect our own interests? If it’s the former, then we need to start being consistent. The calls for an end to violent rhetoric must apply to everyone, starting with those who have been complicit in promoting it in the past.

It’s time for true leadership—leadership that is willing to stand up and say “Enough” to all forms of violent rhetoric, no matter the political cost. For the sake of our country, I hope more of us can step up to meet that challenge.