‘The President is not directly responsible for acts of domestic terrorism, but he should be more careful with his language’. That’s the way the Economist headlined its report on the horrific Pittsburgh killings just over two weeks ago. Its statement is probably a little soft on President Trump, but reasonable nonetheless. Or is it?
Any cursory observer of US politics and the Trump phenomenon will know that the temperature of bigotry has spiked since the business tycoon took office in 2017. In less than two years Presidential discourse has plummeted to divisive lows, informed by menacing tweets, ugly comments and fascist-like rhetoric.
While it is true that a lone-gun lunatic can explode at any time and does not need a Trump to turn into a killing machine, it is naïve to assume that language is without consequences. It does not help when the President of the United States refers to neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville as ‘very fine people,’ or fabricates the presence of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) operatives among Latin-American refugees making their way to the southern border of the United States.
That’s the least of it. Trump has persistently berated a free media and defined journalists who disagree with him as traitors - effectively un-American. We have heard it all before.
The Pittsburgh killer Robert Bowers may well have snapped without Trump’s populist goading; but it is apparent that he was not immune to the toxic and populist discourse emanating from the White House.
Like the parcel bomber Cesar Sayoc who was arrested for posting pipe bombs to critics of President Donald Trump, Bowers inhabited a cyber-like echo chamber of anti-Jewish hate and conspiracy, taking oxygen and solace from the White House tone. The tiny psychopathic sub-culture that he belonged to was nurtured by a broth of prejudice that appealed to the crudest of human instincts.