They are pointing fingers.
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign has accused Vice President Kamala Harris of promoting “dangerous” rhetoric that it claims contributes to a hostile political environment, which has allegedly led to two assassination attempts against Trump. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung criticized Harris for comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler during remarks made from her residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory, asserting that such statements only incite further violence.
Harris’s comments were met with backlash not only from Trump’s camp but also from others, including former third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who stated that her remarks “inspire assassins.” He and other critics emphasized that such language poses a threat not just to Trump, but also to the democratic fabric of the nation. The Mississippi Republican Party echoed these sentiments, labeling Harris’s comments as a dangerous provocation. Jacob Helberg, affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a person of Jewish descent, condemned the comparison as a “disgrace,” given the historical context of the Holocaust.
Republican Representative Steve Scalise also condemned Harris’s rhetoric, warning that her comparisons of Trump to Hitler and fascism could lead to political violence. Scalise, who himself survived an assassination attempt in 2017, called for a cessation of such rhetoric, noting that it has historically resulted in real consequences and questioning how many more attempts would be necessary for leaders to reconsider their language.
Colin Reed, a Republican strategist, found it ironic that Harris’s campaign, which had previously advocated for lowering political tensions, would now invoke Hitler in relation to Trump. He remarked that the focus on fostering positive discourse seemed to have dissipated. Meanwhile, Harris’s comments coincided with a report highlighting remarks made by Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, about Trump’s admiration for Hitler, further complicating the political narrative.
Critics have reiterated concerns that aggressive language and threats directed at Trump, especially after an incident where he was shot at during a rally, require a reevaluation of how political discourse is conducted. Drawing parallels to past political violence, such as the shooting of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011, commentators have long argued that inflammatory language can have dire repercussions. Calls for both sides to moderate their rhetoric reflect an ongoing debate about accountability in political speech and its potential impact on violence.
