A horrific act of political violence happened in Utah today. The leader of a group of young conservatives was assassinated, apparently for his political viewpoint. I say "apparently" since (as of this writing) the shooter is still at large, so for the time being all we are left with is assumptions as to motive.

For once, the condemnation of this political violence has been admirably universal. Politicians on the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, are all denouncing the shooting in equally strong terms. Which they should, of course. It shouldn't matter the ideology of a perpetrator of political violence when issuing such condemnations.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican, put out a statement condemning political violence after the shooting, to give just one prominent example:

I'm just going to state the obvious here. This is detestable, what happened. Political violence has become all too common in American society, and this is not who we are. It violates the core principles of our country, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our civil society, our American way of life. And it must stop. We need every political figure. We need everyone who has a platform to say this loudly and clearly. We can settle disagreements and disputes in a civil manner, and political violence must be called out and has to stop. Again, we ask for prayer.

Democrats -- many of whom have been victims of political violence themselves -- also spoke out:

Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who was a victim of a politically motivated arson attack at the governor's mansion earlier this year, condemned the attack in a statement. "We must speak with moral clarity," he said. "The attack on Charlie Kirk is horrifying and this growing type of unconscionable violence cannot be allowed in our society."

Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman and a Democrat who nearly died in a 2011 assassination attempt, said on social media that she was "horrified" to hear that Mr. Kirk had been shot. "Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence," she said.

As I write this, the political conversation hasn't devolved into: "Your side is violent, not ours!" arguments. Yet. But they will be coming, I am sure. The Republicans will tie this to the attempted assassination attempts on Donald Trump and all other political violence either planned or perpetrated on Republicans or conservative figures. Democrats will counter with their own litany of political violence against their own, from the attempted murder of Nancy Pelosi (which resulted in her elderly husband being beaten with a hammer) to the shootings that Democrats have been victims of.

Both sides have a point. Republicans point to the language Democrats use, objecting to being called fascists and all the dire warnings of the death of American democracy. They say that such rhetoric is so apocalyptic that it influences deranged people who become lone-wolf killers (or attempted killers). Democrats point to Trump (and the entire Republican Party) demonizing certain groups of people and calling them inhuman names and declaring war on them. And, to some extent, both sides have a point. How valid a point and to what extent depends on your own political point of view.

But what would be required to at least make a whole-hearted attempt to rein in this violent period of American history would be both sides to equally condemn political violence when it happens, no matter which side the victim is on.

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about a very dangerous situation that Donald Trump had almost singlehandedly created. Thankfully, even though Trump was pouring gasoline and fanning the flames, there were no deaths from political violence due to all his fearmongering. But what he did was still very dangerous. Because there's a term for what he was doing, and it seems like a good time to review it. This is from an article titled "Springfield Under Siege."

Sadly, that is not the title of an upcoming episode of The Simpsons. Instead, it is how the citizens of an Ohio town are now feeling, due to the stochastic terrorism coming from the very top of the Republican presidential ticket. People in Springfield are scared because these nationally-known politicians are lying about them, demonizing them, scapegoating them, and dehumanizing them. This is a perfect recipe for some hotheaded deranged individual to commit a random act of violence against them, which is precisely why they are so scared right now.

I should pause here for a definition of terms. "Stochastic terrorism" may not be familiar to everyone, so I include both the definition from Dictionary.com (complete with usage example):

stochastic terrorism

the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted:

The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.

...and the definition from Wikipedia, for good measure:

Stochastic terrorism is political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric that is directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.

 

This is, essentially, what both political sides are accusing the other of, when the subject of political violence comes up. Rhetorically painting a picture that the other side is so downright evil that they must be defeated by any means necessary.

Since I admit I am biased in my outlook -- and before I am accused of "bothsidesism" -- the way that I see all of this is that while lone-wolf attacks do happen from both sides of the political aisle, one party is a lot more guilty of fanning the flames than the other. Just look at the Republican responses to the attack on Paul Pelosi -- many of them laughed at an old man being savagely beaten by a hammer. They spun conspiracy theories and brushed aside any blame for the actions of one deranged individual. This came from the absolute top of the party. Whenever there is political violence perpetrated against Democrats or liberals, Republicans either stay silent, refusing to issue any condemnation of the act, or actively celebrate it. That is despicable.

Democrats, for the most part, condemn political violence no matter who is the target. They do not sit on the sidelines and stay silent when the victim of one of these attacks is conservative. And that is precisely the response that should happen across the political aisle whenever any politically violent attack happens.

Anyone calling for the rhetoric to be toned down needs to look within, at this point. Donald Trump regularly demonizes groups of people and uses the most violent imagery possible on his official social media feeds. He just threatened to go to war against an American city. Just think about that for a moment -- a president of the United States threatening warfare against an American city. How many Republicans denounced this when it happened? I think the answer to that is: "none."

Anyone Trump doesn't like -- immigrants (of color, of course), Democrats, college students, protesters (of just about anything, but specifically pro-Palestine protesters), television personalities, Rosie O'Donnell -- is portrayed in dehumanizing language. Trump uses the most vicious and vile terms imaginable, in fact. And Republicans either cheer him on or silently stand by and allow it to happen.

So yes, while Democrats need to keep their own rhetoric in check a little bit, they haven't been the ones who have not just crossed a line but obliterated it in political discourse. So while the inevitable blame game plays out over the next few days, let's keep in mind the fact that one side of this argument is a lot more guilty of stoking the flames of stochastic terrorism -- on a regular and ongoing basis, in fact. Here's another excerpt from that article I wrote last year:

And now [Springfield, Ohio] is hunkered down in a siege mentality, which is absolutely disgraceful and outrageous. The Proud Boys marched their hatred through town recently, and there have been dozens of bomb threats to various places in Springfield, including elementary schools. That is terrorism, folks, plain and simple.

What is equally shocking is that every single politician everywhere isn't forcefully denouncing this terrorism. Donald Trump was directly asked about the bomb threats recently, and he couldn't even bring himself to condemn bomb threats. Against an elementary school. That alone should disqualify him from consideration for any public office anywhere, but sadly it does not.

Political violence (or the threat thereof) used to be universally condemned by American politicians, no matter their party. But Republicans can't bring themselves to do this anymore, because the unquestioned leader of their party is the one responsible for fanning the flames and spreading the lies. Condemning bomb threats against small children might somehow be seen as being disloyal to their Dear Leader, so they stay quiet in a very cowardly way. That is absolutely disgraceful, but it is where the Republican Party now finds itself.

The true test of whether politicians are sincere in denouncing violence perpetrated by someone from their own political side is what they say about it when it happens. It is easy for Republicans to condemn today's assassination. It is much harder for them to condemn whipping up political violence on their own side of the aisle. Trump set the standard for this when he pardoned all the January 6th rioters -- people who were guilty of severely beating police officers.

So the next time a Democrat or liberal is attacked in an act of political violence, I will be listening to hear what Speaker Johnson and all the rest of the Republicans have to say about it. Because if they don't denounce such violence from their own side -- in equally condemnatory language -- then they are simply not sincere in their condemnation of all political violence. Because while political violence does indeed happen from both sides of the political spectrum, the only times it is universally condemned are times like today, when the victim was a conservative. And that needs to change.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant