Following his brush with death in Butler, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump appears to be signalling a new approach to his campaign, outlined in a convention speech and based on unity. This is a mistake.
In an interview aboard his Boeing 757, with the assassination attempt fresh in his mind, Trump spoke to Byron York about his intentions for his remarks in Milwaukee and how they have changed:
It was clear Trump was still processing what happened. Who wouldn’t be? It’s something that will stay with him for the rest of his life. Right now, he’s dealing with the feeling that something very big has changed in his life and in the presidential race. When I asked him, “Does this change your campaign?” he immediately replied, “Yes.”
Trump explained that by Saturday night he had finished the speech he planned to give later this week at the Republican convention. “Basically, I gave a speech that was an incredible riot,” he said. “It was brutal, really good, really tough. (Last night) I threw it away. I think it would be very bad if I got up and started talking like crazy about how horrible everyone is and how corrupt and dishonest it is, even if it is true. If this had not happened, we would have a speech that was pretty well thought out and was extremely tough. Now, we have a speech that is more unifying.”
Trump wouldn’t say that a new speech has been completely written, but parts of it have already been drafted, starting in the hours after the assassination attempt. The idea is to reframe the intense conflicts Trump has engaged in during his years in national politics. “I’ve been fighting a group of people that I considered very bad for a long time, and they’ve been fighting me, and we’ve put up a very good fight,” Trump said. “We had a very tough speech, and I threw it out last night. I said I can’t say these things after what I’ve been through.”
I can understand why this would be the impulse: The man was a millimeter from dying in a field less than seventy-two hours ago. But in pursuing a message of “unity”—something the country’s media elite always resorts to when it fears blame when things happen for which it is responsible—Trump is on the verge of making several mistakes. First, he is sacrificing the moral high ground he now occupies. Second, he is pandering to his critics, who have been beating the drum that Trump himself, miniskirt-style, created the atmosphere that led to his near-death. And third, he is ignoring the temperature of the nation and voters’ frustration with everything around them in favor of a weak message in an attempt to garner public applause. Atlantic and the New York Times.
Trump’s assassination had a devastating effect on the entire narrative that the American left and its allies in the media have promoted for nearly a decade: that it is Trump who is endangering people with dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric, as opposed to the constant repetition, broadcast by social media and fostered by nearly every aspect of culture, that Trump’s rise represents the rise of a fourth American Reich. They ignore the reality that two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and instead blame Trump and his allies for noticing and pointing it out.
CBS’s Margaret Brennan’s ridiculous post-shooting claims, MSNBC’s Jen Psaki’s expressions of fear, and the poisonous vomit of the AtlanticThe media, including Trump and David Frum, continue to portray Trump as a would-be dictator who bears the responsibility of lowering the temperature of our political discourse. These are misleading lies designed to divert attention from their own failings and to instill in the minds of readers and viewers the idea that Donald Trump is the only one who could put military boots on the street in an instant. There is no unity to be achieved with that perspective, and Republicans, including Trump, should not pretend otherwise. It is the media’s responsibility to tone down its own rhetoric, not anyone else’s. We do not have to accept a false equivalency with a side that gives Trump a Hitler mustache or shows Kathy Griffin holding his bloody head.
Awareness of our own mortality should make us feel more compelled to lean toward the truth rather than overlook our differences. Trump reflects with Byron York:
“I would love to have unity if unity could be achieved, if that’s possible,” Trump said. “There are a lot of good people on the other side … But there are also people who are very divided. Some people really want open borders, and some people don’t. The question is, can those two sides come together? Can the sides where there are people who want to see men play in women’s sports and there’s a side that doesn’t even understand the concept of allowing that to happen?”
The answer is no, they can’t. In a democratic republic, we have elections to settle these questions: one side wins, the other loses, and we move on. Either the borders should be open or they shouldn’t be. Either a biological male can compete against a biological female or he can’t. Either abortions kill a human life or they don’t. These are very real divisions, and to pretend they aren’t is to ignore the truth in favor of a bland lie like “can’t we all just get along?” Trump should not make the mistake of letting his experience steer him away from taking strong stands on the country’s most divisive issues. Not everyone will win, and not everyone will be satisfied, but they will still be Americans who can make their voices heard. That’s how our system of government works, or at least how it should work. With Trump, we saw the extent to which our corrupt institutions are willing to reject the will of the voters because they think they know better.
Party donors, corporate leaders, editorial page columnists, and people tired of politics consider unity a virtue, and it can be. But unity is not a higher goal than securing our border, protecting women in sports, or defending innocent human life. When Donald Trump says he has a rousing acceptance speech he is delivering on a message of unity, he ignores the very reason he is in a position to deliver that speech for a third time: that he has, more successfully than any other modern politician, channeled the frustrations of a citizenry abandoned by its leaders and disrespected by our country’s institutions in exchange for seeking applause from a ruling class that called for “unity” over the American interest.
It’s okay to be angry. Some anger is justifiable. Trump should not hesitate to channel it. That’s what he’s here for. He can call for unity if he wins.
