By Harold W. Anderson, Ph.D., MFT. M.A., M.Div.
Someone tried to shoot Donald. Was he a Republican or a Democrat? Was he conservative or progressive? How did someone with an assault rifle get so close to Donald? Why were the only ones to be killed and critically wounded innocent bystanders? Where was the Secret Service? Where were other security agencies that were supposed to protect elected officials and most importantly, the people attending the rally? We could ask these and similar questions forever, but none of them really get to the issue.
With the risk of provoking the ire of many, the issue is not simply the mental health of the shooter; the issue is not even gun laws; the issue is not the state of the security. While being important topics of concern, these questions do not point to the fundamental issue. To some degree, these topics are red herrings. Fundamentally, the issue, which the media seems remiss to address, is the mean-spirited, violent and hateful environment created by the Republican MAGA Party. Their solution to what they believe troubles the United States is violence. The thing that will fix the problems faced by society, they believe, is greater hatred. They preach that the solution to the problems we face as a nation is greater misogyny, more deep-seated racism and the elimination of any who are not loyal to their values. They push and they push, and they bully and they bully, and they sew fear among the masses and then, when the violence is turned on one of their own, they double down. They refuse to admit that their narrative of violence and hate has anything to do with acts of aggression when turned on one of their own. No. They blame the Democrats. They blame the liberals. They blame the fictional Antifa. They name those whom they believe to be their enemies and then they try and find ways to deal with them…hatefully and violently!
I can just imagine that if a MAGA person were reading this, they would challenge me to name a time when MAGA responded violently. What the MAGA person is hoping is that they can master the art of equivocation. They want to hide their violent and hateful ways by focusing only on words. Yea, they might say, some of the MAGA faithful speak violently, but they haven’t done anything that is violent.
This is a favorite tactic of the MAGA faithful. However, speech has an impact upon the world it seeks to define. Narratives impact the minds of those who hear and believe the narrative. Put differently, what we might call “speech acts”[i] have impacts upon others and society that can be as harmful and traumatic as physical acts of violence. In my way of thinking, then, violent and hateful speech acts have no place in political discourse, that is if we claim to live in a modern democracy.
Again, I can hear the MAGA faithful crying foul because, they say, I am engaging in “cancel culture.” Again, they appeal to equivocation and this time, they add a red herring just to be convincing. First, “cancel culture” is relative to the group who feels offended. For example, one of MAGA people’s favorite quips is that sitcoms in the “good old days” could say things that they couldn’t say today. One of their favorite examples is “All in the Family.” The issues addressed and the language used, they bemoan, has been “canceled” by political correctness. “All In the Family” may not be a good example for MAGA people, however, since it was a spoof on conservative stereotypes, which did an excellent job of raising its audience’s awareness of issues like race, patriarchy, misogyny and other important issues facing society at that time. The resolution of issues, however, were often represented by Edith, “Meathead” and marginalized persons, including persons of color. One might argue, then, that “All in the Family” was one of the early woke shows, which could be embraced even in a politically correct environment.
However, I digress. My point is this. “Cancel culture” is a phrase that begs a context and is used by MAGA to draw attention to something they have defined as an issue but may not be based in any kind of evidence. They mix in enough “facts” to make it sound true although in reality “their issue” is simply that…their issue, which may be mostly fiction. So not only does it beg a context, but it also avoids the issue by demonizing “the left” for something that is a product of the MAGA imagination. Their hateful and violent “speech acts” harms and traumatizes those towards whom they are directed. It reveals the inadequacy of the adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Yes, sticks and stones may do harm to our bodies, but words deeply wound the psyche and rob people of their dignity, their self-esteem, and their ability to feel safe. Wounds to the psyche often take much more time and are more difficult to heal than cuts and bruises (Nacos, Shapiro, & Bloch-Elkon, 2020).
While MAGA intends their narratives of violence and hate to be directed at those whom they perceive to be their enemies, the context created by their narrative does not discriminate. Once the narrative becomes public, there is little control over who hears it and how it is received. Again, context is key. If the narrative is spoken at a political rally, for example, one might safely assume that like-minded people are in attendance and that the narrative is being received as intended. But there is an emotional issue involved that creates an exponential factor increasing the violence in intensity and scope. For example, Donald characterizes women as “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “negotiable assets,” “disgusting animals,” and portrays them as “objects” for sexual exploitation. Empirical research would suggest that his hateful narrative about women is incendiary and gives permission to those who hate women to hate more intensely, or for those who are abusers of women, to abuse more fiercely. [ii] The emotional intensity of violence does not calm people, it makes them want to be even more violent. When one considers online media platforms such as X, TicTok, Truth Social, Facebook, etc., echo chambers are created that make it difficult for those involved to think there is anything wrong with this type of misogyny.[iii] Violent and hateful rhetoric or speech acts only ramp up the emotions of those listening and intensifies their thirst for violence and their feelings of hate (Rottweiler, B., Clemmow, C., & Gill, P., 2024; Nacos, Shapiro, & Bloch-Elkon, 2020).
At this point, it is important not to underestimate the harmful impact these narratives have on a stable democracy such as the one in which we now live. Stable democracies, while not perfect, are born of a trajectory of inclusiveness predicated on the conviction that all people deserve to be treated with dignity (Lepoutre, 2017). The United States did not begin by including all who lived here in its definition of “We the People,” but as the country grew, the arch of history began to include those who were excluded. Indeed, for many, the trajectory of inclusion, while not perfect and certainly a work in progress, defines our hope for tomorrow, but I fear it is also something many may have begun to take for granted. Whatever the United States is today, if the hope that tomorrow will be more inclusive and more just for all people is to move forward, we must never take it for granted.
Maxime Lepoutre (2017) speaks to this point by noting that speech acts of hate and violence are a direct attack upon inclusiveness and the conviction that all people should be treated with dignity. Citizens, he thinks, must “know that their peers uphold their good standing [as dignified persons]. Absent the assurance that their dignity is safe, citizens cannot fully enjoy their good standing” (p. 857; emphasis is his). In the words of the “Preamble to the Constitution,” if citizens don’t’ have such assurances, the promise of the Constitution, i.e., a perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, safety, defense, welfare, and hell…even “We the people” is jeopardized.
The assurance of dignity, well-being, and hope are the targets of hateful and violent narratives. These narratives are often dressed in performative rage so that recipients find humor in the attacks it makes upon the dignity of others, but the effect is the introduction of suspicion and discord into public discourse that deconstructs national unity and trust. This, in turn, undermines the diverse nature of dignity. Put differently, narratives of hate and violence are designed to dismantle our democracy and undermine constitutional values by questioning the common dignity of all people and suggesting that partisan loyalty is the only litmus test for well-being.
When hateful and violent speech acts are made public, the way they are received cannot be controlled. If a person who hates is indoctrinated by them, that person becomes more hateful. Likewise, a person not given to violence has a greater chance of becoming violent when given permission to do so. A violent person, who may not have contemplated murder, may do so when given permission by a narrative of violence. However, the trajectory of hate and violence is wide, and one who hates and the violence they engage in may be more than the narrative intended. MAGA intends for recipients of their message to hate those defined as their enemies. They do not intend this message for each other. MAGA violently attacks those who are different from themselves, but they do not intend that a person will act violently towards them. Until they do. At that point, wisdom might dictate that violence and hatred is counterproductive, but MAGA and Donald do not act out of wisdom; they act out of defiance, which only stokes their feelings of hatred and their desire for greater violence.
Narratives of hatred and violence have no place in the public and political discourse of a stable democracy. Those who perpetuate these narratives are the bottom dwellers of society and the virtue of dignity cannot and should not be extended to them. Because of the fictional—one might say lying—nature of their speech acts, they are strangers to the truth and their treachery must be exposed. But how do we do this? How do we bring those who dwell in darkness into the light?
Nacos, Shapiro, & Bloch-Elkon (2020) helpfully remind us that most violent and hateful speech acts begin with the rhetoric of a demagogue. This person may be the leader of a neo-Nazi group, the pastor of a Christian Nationalist congregation, or the past president of the United States, Donald. A distinguishing characteristic of these people is that they “influence public opinion by employing traditional tools of rhetoric with complete indifference to truth” (p. 3). Because of this, these narratives are considered “propaganda” that utilize the latest platforms in communication technology to reach as many people as possible. Noting that such narratives exceed even “communication-as-ritual,” which is one of the more persuasive forms of media platforms, demagogues such as Donald perfect “rituals of excommunication,” which tend to pit one group against another. Put differently, rituals-as-excommunication defines at least two groups, one of which is blindly loyal to the demagogue and the other group being the enemy of the demagogue. The intent of a demagogue’s speech act is to stoke this division by belittling those in the “out group” in an effort to make them appear worthless in the minds of the loyalists. Or, in terms of MAGA, Donald denigrates people and makes them appear worthless to justify hateful and violent speech acts in the minds of the MAGA faithful. As Donald put it in a speech for his 2016 campaign, “the only important thing is unification of people—because the other people don’t mean anything” (quoted in Nacos, Shapiro, & Bloch-Elkon, 2020, p. 3). To MAGA faithful, this means they have permission to hate and act violently; to extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and other white supremacists, it means “stand back and stand by.” It is a call to violence.
My point is this: The people who follow a demagogue are fiercely loyal to their leader and their loyalty is based not upon well-reasoned facts, but upon the fictional narratives of the leader who is a pathological liar, which makes countering these narratives quite difficult. As President Biden can attest, trying to debate someone who spews lies uncontrolled by either factual evidence or the rules of debate is a daunting prospect of absolute futility. Debate requires listening to what one’s opponent is saying, analyzing their argument, and pointing out where the argument is weak so that a stronger position might be defined. The point of debate, in other words, is not division but unification that often takes place through compromise. Debate with Donald and the MAGA faithful is at best futile. Drawing upon a prepared script, Donald and MAGA faithful routinely memorize the main points so they can spew them quickly, bombastically and venomously whether they address the issue or not. Once the points have been made, they retreat to name-calling and attempt to shame and bully their opponents into submission. It is useless to try and engage such rhetorical monologue in a meaningful way.
This has led many to argue that the only way to combat violent and hateful speech acts is with a counter narrative, a counter speech act, if you will. Vice-President Harris has mastered this technique in her run for the presidency. She uses counter narrative by outlining what Donald stands for and contrasts that with her position. Without saying Trump is delusional, although this is implied in her intonation, Harris asks people to choose. Against Donald’s narrative of hate, Harris offers a narrative of acceptance and hope. Against his narrative of violence, she offers a narrative that while being tough on crime, refuses to engage in the us vs. them scenario. Whereas Donald tries to vulcanize the faithful with his hate of the outsider, Harris rallies people around the notion that our nation is a diverse nation and it is our diversity that should unify us. The counter narrative she presents marks a strong distinction between her ways and the ways of Donald.
Another politician who excels at this is Pete Buttigieg. The precision of his language and his mastery of facts allows him to go onto Fox programs and “shut down” his host. His polite demeanor and stubborn refusal to allow the host to dominate the discussion makes his performance quite compelling but at the same time he strikes a stark contrast between Democrats and MAGA Republicans, between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Appearing on Fox makes this even more remarkable because he is then speaking directly to the MAGA faithful, whether they choose to listen or not.
It is important to note what is taking place here. It’s not that the counter narrative offered by Harris and Buttigieg are simply different. They offer counter narratives that appeal not to hatred but to what President Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Their speech acts are non-polarizing discourses. They invite people to join them; they do not define their followers by their power to exclude. However, what it means to join is also defined differently from Donald and MAGA faithful. Certainly, Harris and the Democrats want support, but joining is not defined by loyalty. It is defined by developing one’s own counter narrative. When the counter narratives are offered by others in their own words and by developing their own comparisons, the tone of the wider narrative is not one led by a demagogue, but is more like a coalition directed by Harris, certainly, but not monopolized by her. It feels like a coalition of peers more than loyal followers.
There are those who doubt the effectiveness of counter narratives in combatting hateful and violent speech acts. Research on its effectiveness is still in its infancy, but one large longitudinal study suggests that counter narratives can be effective in reducing violent and hateful speech acts online. They conclude: “According to our results, citizens wishing to engage in counter speech would likely increase the effectiveness of their efforts if they organized and participated in discussions in a coordinated way” (Garland, J, et al., 2022, p. 19). Put differently, the organization that taps into the better angels of our nature inspires people to “steer hateful conversations to a more neutral or even positive ground, supporting victims, voicing dissent to hateful positions or even simply by ‘liking’ counter messages so that they are more broadly visible” (Garland, J, et al., 2022, p. 19).
It has been said that “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” Isaac Asimov is credited with his line, and it is interesting to think about what it truly means. In an interesting essay created by ChatGPT, Asimov’s statement is placed in the context of Stoicism, a philosophical way of thinking that emphasizes self-control and the ability to achieve inner peace regardless the circumstances. Hear the wisdom of the computer:
- It [Asimov’s quote] hints at the ineptitude of leaders who resort to force as a means of asserting dominance or control. Rather than engaging in constructive dialogue or seeking peaceful negotiations, they opt for violence, which ultimately displays a lack of competence in handling complex societal issues. This interpretation reiterates the detrimental consequences of violence and the urgent need to cultivate competent leaders who can lead with wisdom and empathy. In conclusion, Isaac Asimov’s quote, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent,” challenges our perception of violence and its role in problem-solving. This succinct statement prompts us to examine the competence of individuals or groups who resort to violence, urging us to consider alternatives that prioritize intellect, non-violence, and inner strength. When viewed through the lens of Stoicism, this quote gains further depth, highlighting the importance of emotional intelligence and moral fortitude as hallmarks of true competence. Moreover, the quote encourages us to reflect on the actions of those in power and the consequences of their violent tendencies. As we explore these ideas, we gain insights into the potential for a more peaceful and empathetic world where violence is recognized as an inadequate and ineffective solution to our problems.
This is a counter narrative created by a computer! Would it be that MAGA and their leader, Donald, could be as wise.
Unfortunately, the incompetence of Donald and those like him will always be with us. Even if hateful and violent speech acts are driven underground, they will resurface from time to time. When they do, we will be wise not to be sucked into their violence, hatred and incompetence. If we are to minimize the sting of hateful and violent speech acts—the violent rhetoric of hatred, bigotry, misogyny, and violence—we must be masters of the counter narrative. We must weave together narratives that appeal to the better angels of our nature and in so doing, create an environment where the promise of our country’s “Preamble to the Constitution” has a chance. We the people—all of us regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, and socio-economic standing—will come together to form a trajectory where unity, justice, domestic tranquility, safety and well-being will be more than just a dream. It will be the goal that defines the work of our nation.
Vote Blue up and down the ticket; vote for Harris for President. Maybe then, we will come closer to our goal. Kamala as president is the best counter narrative I know for Donald’s speech acts of violence and hate. Electing her would indeed make America great!
Works consulted:
- Garland, J., et al. (2020). Impact and dynamics of hate and counter speech online. EPJ Data Science, 11(3), pp. 1-24.
- Hangartner, D., et al. (2021). Empathy-based counterspeech can reduce racist hate speech in a social media field experiment. PNAS, 118(50), pp. 1-3.
- Lepoutre, M. (2017). Hate speech in public discourse: A pessimistic defense of counterspeech. Social Theory and Practice, 43(4), pp. 851-883.
- Marques, T. (2023). The expression of hate in hate speech. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 40(5), pp. 769-787.
- Nacos, B.L., Shapiro, R.Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2020). Donald Trump: Aggressive rhetoric and political violence. Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(5), pp. 2-25.
- Rottweiler, B., Clemmow, C., & Gill, P. (2024). A common psychology of male violence? Assessing the effects of misogyny on intentions to engage in violent extremism, interpersonal violence and support for violence against women. Terrorism and Political Violence, (January), pp. 1-26.
[i] While J.L. Austin is the person responsible for coining the term “speech acts,” Maxime Lepoutre (2017) helps us understand the broad nature of the term when he writes, speech acts “include not just verbal speech, but all platforms (including printed images) that might be used to communicate these propositional contents.” Applying this to hateful speech, he notes that “what makes a communication hate speech is not the speaker’s emotion, but rather the communication’s content.” While I agree, I would also note that emotion is an important element of hateful and violent speech acts.
[ii] A recent article examines the association between what I have called violent and hateful speech acts towards women and violence towards women. According to the authors, “Emerging empirical research further highlights misogynistic attitudes and behaviors are outwardly expressed in diverse forms of extremism such as Far-Right extremism, jihadism and among ‘misogynistic incels. Male supremacist and strict patriarchal norms and gender roles are common elements which underpin different extremist ideologies, strategies, and tactics, whereby misogyny is used to justify violence against women in order to reinforce male-dominated gendered hierarchies. Correspondingly, a growing body of work finds grievances against women and a history of gender- based violence are common among violent extremists and terrorists. Similarly, research consistently shows that perpetrators of other forms of targeted violence are often motivated by grievances against women and/or share histories of gender-base violence, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and online harassment of women” (Rottweiler, B., Clemmow, C., & Gill, P., 2024, p. 2).
[iii] Donald has popularized the saying “Make America Great Again” or “MAGA.” One often wonders what time the “Again” is in reference to. To listen to some of the MAGA people talk, one might be inclined to think it is the 1950s. So you remember what people were saying of women then? If a woman was raped, they thought she was “asking for it.” If a husband abused his wife, the wife must have “done something to provoke him.” Even psychology books of the late 1950-1970s talked as if a teenager who wore sexually suggestive clothing might be “asking for it.” This was not a time for women. A woman’s place was in the home and she couldn’t even take out a loan or have a credit card in her own name. Women, for millennia, have literally been the “possessions,” or as Donald put it, the “negotiable assets” of men. I don’t know about you, but that is not a time I want to get back to; it is a time I hope we forever leave behind.