The power of words in modern-day politics

Donald J. Trump’s continuous lies and provoking rhetoric espoused on his Twitter account, rather than his actions, were central to his second impeachment trial

Brittany Lang /Feature Editor

In an unprecedented turn of events, the world watched in horror as footage of rioters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6 flooded television screens and news outlets around the globe. The loathsome behavior exhibited by these individuals, whose purpose was to “take back” the election they believed was stolen, was the culmination of two months of encouragement by former President Trump himself. 

Trump’s continuous calls to action to his unwavering supporters through tweets and public statements inciting violence and promoting misinformation after the election did not come as much of a surprise. Trump and his cohorts had been pushing the narrative that due to the high percentage of mail-in voting, the 2020 presidential election would be racked with fraud — evidently only if he lost the election to Joe Biden. However, many did not foresee the extremities Trump’s disciples would take after being fueled by his words. 

Trump’s lawyers took to the Senate floor on the morning of Feb. 12 to strenuously deny that he played any role in inciting the chaos that played out at the Capitol, and that this type of rhetoric is not atypical in the political world. They claimed that he had the right to publicly dispute the election results, which they equated to the actions of Democrats in 2016. His lawyers insisted that in no way did his words validate the argument that Trump is responsible for the barbaric insurrection. 

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years,” Trump’s lawyer Michael van der Veen said. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.” 

Trump’s lawyers acknowledged the horrors of the riots at the Capitol, but argued that he cannot be regarded as the main instigator. This argument likely resonated with Republican senators who wanted to condemn the violence without convicting the president, as they had their own political careers in mind. His lawyers did not stick to a narrow constitutional argument as they also focused on accusing the Democrats of using the impeachment process for partisan gain.

There are two fallacies that need to be corrected regarding Trump’s lawyers’ insistence that his questioning of the election’s validity was not uncommon and that he had every right to pose such concerns. 

First, Trump’s statements made on Twitter were not just questions — there were assertions. He repeatedly used the phrases, “we won the election,” “we won it by a landslide,” and that the election was “rigged” and “stolen.” These statements were presented by him as irrefutable facts that left no room for doubt, despite such accusations being disproved time and again by state courts and election officials. His loyal supporters who were left distraught when Biden was announced as president-elect were encouraged to take whatever actions necessary in order to take back the election.

During the second day of the impeachment trial on Feb. 11, the prosecutors used videos of the rioters giving their statements from that fateful day in order to cast Trump as not a bystander but the “inciter in chief.” One Capitol invader said, “we were invited here.” “Trump sent us,” another said. “He will be happy. We’re fighting for Trump.” 

Trump told his supporters to “fight” and that they “will not take their country back with weakness.” With these provoking words from Trump, he validated the extreme actions that the mob felt they had to take — smashing windows, assaulting police officers, and destroying government property. Essentially with his encouragement through these vague directives, Trump’s far-right supporters who had it in them to take such violent measures were given the green light.

Second, no other modern president has refused to concede and commit to a peaceful transfer of power once all the votes have been counted and legal challenges resolved, despite Trump’s lawyers alluding to the idea that his actions were conventional. 

A peaceful transfer of power has been a norm since 1800 when the country’s second president John Adams became the first president to lose his reelection bid to Thomas Jefferson. Despite some concessions being more gracious than others, throughout American history it has been considered an essential custom since its inception — that is, until the 2020 election.

On Saturday Feb. 13, the Senate voted 57 to 43 to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection — two-thirds, or 67 votes were needed. The acquittal of Trump was an unsurprising outcome of the impeachment trial, albeit frustrating.

The impeachment trial went beyond the question of whether or not Trump’s speech was responsible for the violent mobs that stormed the Capitol. It was a question of whether the U.S. will remain a democracy or take another step towards authoritarianism. The acquittal of Trump signifies that by not convicting and barring him from holding public office in the future, the Senate has defended lies, divisiveness, and violence. Therefore, it appears as though we have taken that next step. 

The events that transpired on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, which are arguably best understood as a coup attempt, would not have happened to the degree that they did without Trump’s adamant refusal to accept the election results and his continuous spread of misinformation.

It is important that as students of USD, we understand the future trajectory of American politics. Words that today are so easily shared and have no limit on the amount of people they can reach, can either strengthen or hurt our democratic system. When those in power use words to spread hatred and lies, they make individuals who harbor resentment and hostility for other individuals or groups feel seen and heard — this opens up a place in society for this kind of hate to manifest. 

We have witnessed the humiliation of a nation once considered the world’s greatest democracy. Let us remember that words hold a lot more power than we think, and there is a fine line between free speech and speech that has a direct link to violence. It is up to the future generations to know how to recognize each.

The views expressed in the editorial and op-ed sections are not necessarily those of The USD Vista staff, the University of San Diego, or its student body.