This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
Former President Donald Trump has faced at least two credible assassination attempts this election year. The most recent incident, on Sunday at one of his golf clubs in Florida, was not as close as the one that injured him at a Butler, Pennsylvania, campaign rally on July 13. However, it was still a real and immediate threat – a fully loaded assault rifle allegedly held by Ryan Wesley Routh from 400 yards away, targeting the leader of the Republican Party, with the potential to disrupt American politics and history.
This incident is just the latest in a series of events that have shaken the nation this summer. Two weeks before the attack on Trump’s life in Butler, President Joe Biden triggered a crisis within the Democratic Party with his struggling debate performance. A week after the attack, Biden withdrew his bid for a second term, paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to quickly consolidate her party’s support and reset the competition for the presidency. Over the following weeks, details emerged about two international plots to disrupt the election – one from Iran, which had initiated operations to hack Trump’s campaign and potentially harm him, and another from Russia seeking to influence public opinion and erode faith in the voting process.
Any one of these shocking events would warrant extensive historical analysis. However, taken together, they seem less impactful than the sum of their individual parts. They form a series of developments that blend into one another, diminishing the urgency of each and numbing the shock that accompanies them. But the recent attempt on Trump’s life cannot be treated as another routine event. American democracy, at its best, is based on the strength of arguments, the character of its leaders, and the collective judgment of the nation. When the threat of political violence, or even its actual occurrence, becomes normalized, democracy itself is undermined. It is therefore crucial for the public to understand that these assassination attempts this summer are seen as an attack on patriots of all political persuasions, especially given their uncertain impact.
There are parallels between this moment and 1968, an election year that was similarly consumed by extreme politics. Lyndon Johnson faced a rebellion within his Democratic Party over American involvement in Vietnam, leading him to step down. After a tumultuous period, the new nominee, Hubert Humphrey, bypassed the primaries altogether and secured the nomination at a Chicago convention amidst street violence. Meanwhile, Republicans chose to stick with an imperfect but familiar figure – former Vice President Richard Nixon – while also considering a promising young politician from California named Ronald Reagan. As public opinion soured on the war, the frustrations of the Civil Rights movement boiled over in the face of ongoing and persistent inequality. The assassinations of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy shattered the faith millions of Americans had in their nation’s ability to engage in peaceful debate and the transfer of power.
By the time 1968 was in the past, the standards of what Americans expected from their leaders had shifted significantly, ultimately reshaping both parties and their interactions with the country. Democrats embraced the emerging coalitions from the anti-war and Civil Rights marches while shedding their Dixiecrat roots. Republicans recognized the value of early culture war skirmishes and began to assist some Christian groups in gaining political influence. The political center fractured as both parties started to move toward polarity, setting the stage for the country’s first significant political reset in the post-World War II era.
It is easy to lose perspective amidst such historical events. During a flood of information, prioritizing news becomes a survival mechanism as much as a civic duty. We all find ways to cope with crises, and overlooking complicated and contradictory moments is the most common response. As the threat of political violence pervades so much of this election season, this “nothing to see here” attitude is understandable. However, our leaders’ responses should be held to a higher standard.
A day after federal officials shot and arrested alleged would-be assassin Routh, Trump thanked the U.S. Secret Service, the local sheriff, and law enforcement officers for their swift action in spotting a rifle sticking out from the treeline. However, he also quickly blamed Biden and Harris for both recent attempts on his life, accusing them of using heated political attacks that have portrayed Trump as a fundamental threat to democracy. “Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at, when I am the one who is going to save the country, and they are the ones that are destroying the country,” the former President stated, using much of the same rhetoric that helped his polling and fundraising surge after the attempt on his life at a rally in Pennsylvania.
At the White House, Biden briefly addressed the potential shooting, telling reporters Monday morning that the Secret Service “needs more help. And I think Congress should respond to their need.” Over the weekend – but before the drama at Trump’s golf course – Biden had blamed his predecessor for the escalating tensions in the country. He specifically cited Springfield, Ohio, where leaders are dealing with bomb threats and other threats of violence as Trump continues to make unsubstantiated claims that Haitian immigrants are preying on residents’ dogs and cats. Biden pointedly said “any President should reject hate in America” and “not incite it.”
America is a deeply divided nation, just as it was in 1968. And because election-year events like those 56 years ago and today can alter the course of the country, Americans deserve leaders who will responsibly guide a path through the disruption towards a new political consensus.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. .
