For a political candidate, responding to an assassination attempt should be fairly easy: Be thankful if no one was hurt, express your condolences if anyone was and condemn political violence.
Democratic nominee Kamala Harris showed how to do it in her immediate response to the apparent assassination attempt over the weekend on former President Donald Trump, putting out a statement that said she is “glad he is safe” and that “violence has no place in America.”
Trump’s response, however, has revealed a very different approach.
Speaking to Fox News Digital less than 24 hours after the incident, he claimed that the rhetoric of President Joe Biden and Harris was “causing me to be shot at,” then immediately pivoted to saying they are “destroying the country” and that they are “the enemy from within” and “the real threat.”
The threat of political violence, regrettably, is nothing new in our nation’s history. However, this election cycle, the rhetoric has been hotter, negative and more dangerous than usual, and how our politicians choose to respond may matter.
For Republican candidates in swing districts and states, responding more like Harris — and less like Trump — may be the key to putting some distance between their campaigns and the problematic candidate at the top of the ticket.
Condemning the apparent attempt on Trump's life while making sure to also criticize other overheated and even violent rhetoric from your own side can make these candidates look thoughtful and responsible. These candidates should be careful to avoid any similar comments and go out of their way to talk about their opponents as fundamentally decent people with whom they politically disagree.
In a normal political environment, this is how candidates would respond anyway. It's the right thing to do, and it helps reduce the threat of future violence by turning down the temperature on our political disagreements.
But if that is not enough motivation, candidates should consider that it might help them win their races in November, too.
