Last Saturday, former United States President Donald Trump joined the infamous list of presidential candidates or presidents who have been shot for political reasons related to their beliefs and ideals.
According to the FBI, during the campaign event in Pennsylvania, Trump was attacked by young Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was wearing a shirt from the popular YouTube channel DemolitionRanch, which is a channel about firearms.
Unfortunately, it appears there were two deaths at the scene, and former U.S. President Donald Trump came out of the incident alive, although wounded in his right ear.
This incident forces us to make a review as a society about what we believe regarding freedom of expression, violence and political differences, because in any society that has a democratic system at any level, both freedom of expression and security are two of the most important pillars.
Violence when directed at a politician is twofold: To the person who received the attack, and to the population whose ideals they represent.
In this case Donald Trump, especially after the debate with Biden, has increased his popularity exponentially, which means that many people agree with his political ideals and beliefs. An attack on his person largely means an attack on those ideas.
The Problem of So-Called "Hate Speech"
Donald Trump has one of the most representative voices of the conservative right at the United States level, and worldwide.
By logic, those on the other side of the political spectrum have sought ways to discredit his voice to take away his power.
And regardless of what your political position is, these differences are taking on disproportionate dimensions that we should all pay attention to.
Saturday's attack is not only an attack on a politician, a presidential candidate, a businessman or a former president. It is an attack on freedom of expression itself in the United States, which is supposed to be the beacon of the West for freedom.
All Latin American countries in some way live under the protection of the economic strength of the United States, and this economic strength would be impossible in a country where there is no freedom of expression.
If we lose the United States, we would be losing one of the most important warriors in the cultural war, and that could generate a long season of more poverty, more violence and more insecurity in Mexico and the rest of Latin American countries.
That is why in part in recent years we have seen a growing increase in the notion of "Hate Speech", which in a few words implies that a person can exercise violence with words when that word someone feels or perceives as an attack.
This is problematic to say the least, because without a clear division between what is freedom of expression and what is hate speech, the distinction is left in the hands of whoever wants to make it.
So one day referring to a person by their name, with their pronouns or by their race, class or nationality can be freedom of expression, and the next day it can be hate speech, depending on who you ask and how the political stars are aligned at that exact moment.
An Attack on Ideals, Not Just the Person
Beyond our political preferences and our own ideas, it is important to recognize that Trump represents the ideals of an entire population. At least 60% or 70% of the population in the United States (according to polls after the latest debate with Biden).
So, whether we like it or not, these ideas are important to many people. The phrase commonly attributed to Voltaire comes to mind: "Although I disagree with your ideas, I will defend them with my life".
So, in addition to the attack on the person, these are the ideas that were by extension attacked in last Saturday's attack:
- "Make America Great Again": Restore the greatness and strength of the United States.
- Border Security and Restriction of Illegal Immigration: Complete the border wall and adopt strict policies against illegal immigration.
- Strengthening the Economy: Reduce taxes, deregulate industries and promote job creation.
- "America First" in Foreign Policy: Prioritize U.S. interests in treaties and international agreements.
- Support for Law Enforcement: Strengthen public safety and oppose defunding the police.
- Right to Bear Arms: Defend the Second Amendment and oppose restrictions on weapons.
- Electoral System Reform: Implement changes to ensure free and fair elections.
- Energy Independence: Support the production of oil, gas and coal, and criticize green energy policies.
Beyond defining whether or not we agree with his political ideals, it is important to take a step back and ask ourselves where the United States is at this moment, culturally and economically. And remember that any democratic system at any level requires alternation. Alternation is the only thing that can protect a nation from falling into problematic extremes.
Political violence is not only unacceptable, but also counterproductive for a democratic society. Ideological and political differences should be handled through dialogue and constructive debate. History shows us that leaders who have been attacked are often those who seek significant changes and improvements in society. True progress is achieved when we learn to communicate better, to listen and to respect diverse opinions. Solving our problems through dialogue allows us to build a more just and equitable future for all, honoring the democratic principles we value.
What Can I Do About It?
The first step is to fix my own house before trying to fix other people's houses. There are methodological models that at a personal and organizational level can help you avoid falling into violent forms of personal relationships. One of them is the Non-Violent Communication Model, which in 4 steps allows us to make a critical self-observation to communicate with others in a more efficient and empathetic way.
If you are interested in learning more about this, you can download the playbook here.
In conclusion, this is not about who I am going to vote for or who I would vote for. Last Saturday should be a wake-up call for all of us not to allow our communication to be violent. Instead, we all have the responsibility to become assertive leaders who learn to de-escalate things instead of escalating them, and who learn to resolve our differences through dialogue before resorting to violence.