The Trump rally shooting in Pennsylvania reveals a bipartisan consensus about what constitutes political violence — and who should wield it.

The issue, rather, is what picture of “political violence” this messaging serves: To say that “political violence” has “no place” in a society organized by political violence at home and abroad is to acquiesce to the normalization of that violence, so long as it is state and capitalist monopolized.

As author Ben Ehrenreich noted on X, “There is no place for political violence against rich, white men. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    2·
    4 months ago

    “democratic politicians”, “person who incited attack on the capitol because he lost the election” and “one of us” can’t be in the same sentence.

    it is imho simply the case that they can’t publicly say “oh fuck, so close, why did that moron miss?”

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      4·
      4 months ago

      No I think even in private they don’t want Trump assassinated unless theyre not thinking this through. Cause if assassinations of politicians become more normalized or are shown as successful or called for by certain sides then that just makes the jobs of politicians on both sides more dangerous. Even if they’d be happy if he dropped dead him getting killed in an assassination just makes the target on them bigger as well as people would see they can work as a way to get rid of politicians they don’t like.