Former President Donald Trump, speaking at a rally in the swing state of Pennsylvania, seemingly narrowly dodged certain death after gunshots sounded, apparently clipping his ear.
Education, healthcare and the economy are all big issues in the United States electoral campaign
Bruce Cotterill is a professional director and adviser to business leaders. He is the author of the book, The Best Leaders Don’t Shout, and host of the podcast Leaders Getting Coffee.
In all probability, it changed the US’ Presidential election, too. That election is due to be held in November. Given the differing policies of the two protagonists, one a former President, the other the incumbent, that election will have a major impact on our troubled world.
The assassination attempt is the most visible of its kind in the Western world in the past 40 years. The attempted assassination of then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981 was the last time we saw something similar in television pictures. That was a different time, of course. Back then, the media’s distribution methods and reaction times were vastly different.
Today, such news goes around the world with immediate effect. It’s instantly shocking and often quickly dismissed, such is our desensitisation to atrocity in today’s world. But this one and the already iconic photographs of a defiant Trump, will linger for some time.
The attempt on Trump’s life comes at a time when politicians have increasingly used incendiary language. Opposing politicians are no longer satisfied to deliver messages about where they might disagree or what they might do instead. Rather, commentary has become increasingly personal, disrespectful and even hateful.
To be fair, Trump has played a leading role in the escalation of such defamatory language on the political stage. But he is not alone.
In the aftermath of the shooting, both Trump and his political rival, President Joe Biden, called for unity. In a prepared statement delivered from the Oval Office the following day, Biden spoke about the need for Americans to “lower the temperature in our politics”. He went on to say that “We may disagree, but we’re not enemies”.
Biden’s speech writers are spot on. They read the mood of the majority of the nation and despite his recent wobbles in front of the camera, the President delivered a message that was timely, appropriate, and dignified.
The Biden campaign immediately suspended a US$50m ($83m) advertising campaign that had been conceived in response to the sitting President’s appalling performance in the first Presidential Debate. That campaign was said to feature “anti-Trump attack ads”. Just think about that phrase for a moment. The campaign featured statements including suggestions that Trump is “a convicted criminal who’s only out for himself”. Irrespective of which side you may be on, this is hardly constructive commentary.
And yet, such comments are reflective of where Western politics, at least until last Saturday, have been.
Incidentally, the timing for Biden’s Democratic Party campaign could hardly have been worse. With their candidate already struggling on the back of poor debate and media performances, the Democrats needed a high-profile and robust campaign to compete with this week’s Republican Party Convention. That opportunity is now in tatters. Meanwhile, Trump the victim, stood at the Republican Party Convention, and accepted their nomination for the Presidential contest with a hastily changed speech and a modified demeanour.
That demeanour will be important to watch over the next few months. Because it is not just American democracy that is on trial here. Every political discourse needs a rethink.
The reason is simple. Attacks on politicians seem to be on an ever-growing wave. In recent times the tragic assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shizo Abe in 2022 stands out in a country known for its peaceful outlook. Similarly, Brazil, Pakistan, South Korea and Denmark, to name a few, have also seen life-threatening attacks on senior politicians in the past few years.
If you think the acceptance of such damaging rhetoric is the sole domain of US presidential politics, think again. Such behaviour by our politicians is now commonplace around the globe. From the so-called far right and extreme left political campaigns that have dominated Europe this year, to our own politics in this small country, the weaponisation of language has become a major and tasteless development over recent years.
In this country it is the political left, those social activists who grew up shouting into their megaphones at civil demonstrations, who have taken their use of language to a level that we would be better off without.
The Breakfast team watched on as Chris Chang shot at the Donald Trump doll. Photo / TVNZ
This week TVNZ has been forced to apologise for a second time, as a result of their Breakfast team shooting a Trump doll with a bug killer shaped like a toy gun, live on air a year or so ago. It was unacceptable then and it looks worse now. In the aftermath of the Trump shooting, that TVNZ clip went around the world. It makes us look childish and disrespectful.
That “temperature” that President Biden referred to on Sunday has escalated here, too. This weaponisation of language has been a feature in the behaviour of both our Green Party and Te Pāti Māori.
In this writer’s opinion, it is at least equally dangerous to what we are seeing elsewhere. Again, last weekend, we saw that behaviour to the fore here.
TVNZ’s Q+A programme last Sunday saw host Jack Tame interview Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. She repeatedly referred to the fact that our current Government was threatening the ability of Māori to exist.
She went on to say that “the coalition Government is genocidal, ecocidal white supremacists who don’t want Māori to exist and are committing genocide”.
To be fair, Tame repeatedly challenged her comments. But instead of backing off, she doubled down.
Let’s be clear with some definitions here. Genocide means “the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group”. A white supremacist is a person who “believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races”. Ecoside is “the destruction of large areas of the natural environment as a consequence of human activity”.
None of these definitions apply to New Zealand in 2024. In fact, there is no evidence on any front that our Government is acting in such a manner.
And while we’re at it, we should clear up some of the other rants of opposition politicians. New Zealand is not a dictatorship. Readers might recall that we had an election less than a year ago and a collection of political parties comprising a majority of votes cast have formed a Government. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that revising the school lunch policy is racist. But these are the things beings said.
Let’s be clear. These statements are not being made by reckless nutters sitting on the fringes of our society. The people making these comments are members of our Parliament. In the case of Q+A, , the guest is a co-leader of one of our political parties.
I’m all for free speech. It’s an important foundation of our society and it’s a privilege to live in a country where we can take it for granted. But with such freedoms come responsibilities. Our political leaders need to take that responsibility much more seriously.
Instead, we are seeing language that is more and more provocative, intentionally delivered in a manner designed to be divisive. Such comments are neither factual nor constructive. There are plenty of words and phrases available in the English language for our politicians to use to get their messages across. Resorting to the tactics of division is desperate and worse, inflammatory.
The lesson from America is that, in a world where bipartisan media is accessible 24 hours a day, inflammatory language from politicians on all sides of the political spectrum becomes widely reported and is incredibly divisive. I’ve just had a couple of weeks in the US. That language distils down to the opinions of the man or woman in the street. Based on the discussions I had, that person is now highly opinionated in one direction or the other. Those opinions are more extreme than before. The political rhetoric distils into the views of the community. And just like here, that community is divided more than ever before.
Last weekend in Pennsylvania, we saw where such division can lead. And while I cannot imagine a country such as New Zealand becoming subject to such politically inspired violence, I’d like to think our current and aspiring politicians can see the risks associated with misleading and inflammatory language choices, and in doing so, modify their approach accordingly.
The alternative is to become a nation at war with itself. That’s something that none of us, even the most extremist politicians, want.
The good thing about us Kiwis is that we can have a giggle at a politician on the receiving end of a handful of mud, or even a well-targeted sex toy. But next time, it could be more serious.
Let’s hope that the behaviour of our politicians ensure that that day never comes.
