Political leaders are condemning political violence after the assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Pennsylvania Saturday.
The alleged gunman and a spectator are dead, with two others reportedly critically wounded.
The incident adds a new wrinkle to a divisive political campaign season as federal agencies begin their investigation.
WAMC's Lucas Willard spoke with Eric Stern, professor and faculty chair at the University at Albany’s College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cyber Security:
When an event like this happens, it triggers multiple types of reactions. So, on the one hand, there's a more traditional criminal investigation, which is about understanding what's going on. Now, the suspected perpetrator is thought to have been killed in the attack. If the perpetrator was working alone, then it's not going to be so much about legal accountability for an individual. But, it's not entirely clear yet that that was the case. There may have been co-conspirators, and certainly that possibility is being explored. There are other aspects of it. as well, in terms of the investigation or the follow-up or the after-action reviews. So of course, another question that's being asked is, ‘How could this happen?’ When candidates in general, , for federal office, and presidential candidates in particular, and former President Trump being high profile and controversial in the way that he is, have get security protection from the Secret Service, and that you know that there is different levels of potential threat at different times. And so, a question that is being asked is, were proper precautions taken, were good practices followed, were indications of threat followed up, and did they lead to adjustments in the security posture, and there are some allegations already out there, hard to say at this point if they're responsible or not, some indications that maybe they're not, that Trump campaign requests for additional security were denied.
And that's something that a spokesman for the Secret Service actually went on social media this morning and dispelled that rumor, that the Trump campaign had requested additional security and that the Secret Service had denied that. But I wanted to talk about misinformation, here, because we're already in an intense political campaign. And, we've seen misinformation be fed into campaigns in the past. With an event like this, how does the government, can the government really respond to control rumors and misinformation and disinformation that may already be circulating?
Well, it’s extremely difficult in the information environment that we have in the world of social media and smart devices and artificial intelligence and a variety of different types of information and psychological warfare attacks. We know that there are various groups, both domestic and state adversaries and others, that like to exploit our divisions, and that certainly will take every opportunity to use an event like this as an opening to try to pour gasoline on the fire and widen our divisions. The Russians have certainly been known to operate in this way. The Chinese do as well. And there are, of course, domestic groups that do similar things. The very interesting example was during the Maui fires last summer, there was a disinformation attack that, basically, was directed against emergency management and was telling people not to accept government assistance. It turned out that there were Chinese fingerprints on that, according to a number of sources. So, even a natural tragedy can be exploited by state adversaries or rivals, competitors, whatever word you want to use, and political events like this, perhaps are even more volatile.
At the moment, you have local, state and federal leaders condemning the violence, but there have been some that are pointing to what they say is political rhetoric. Republicans, some are immediately blaming the far left and the rhetoric of President Biden yet Donald Trump has built his political brand on inflammatory rhetoric. So, one, do you think that there is a correlation between rhetoric and violence, and two, do you think that after this assassination attempt, anything will change in the campaigns?
Well, those are two excellent questions, and we can unpack both of them. It could take quite a while, but a couple of sort of quick takes on that. So, I think there is a relationship between the quality of rhetoric, particularly dramatic, aggressive, violent imagery, and inspiring individuals to take action. Certainly, the tone of our political debate, the decline of what we might call political civility, the extreme polarization that we've been seeing in American politics, creates a situation where troubled people can hear the debate and perhaps not have the ability to discount it a little bit, and perhaps take some extreme characterizations literally and then act upon them in irresponsible ways. There's a concept in the terrorism literature called stochastic terrorism, which is about situations where, say, a group like al Qaeda promulgates narratives and communicates and urges to violence, and then people step up and do things, There isn't always a direct link, and you know, an explicit conspiracy between those who are trying to incite the violence and those who actually do it. It's a more complex and diffuse process than that. When you take the step to the political environment, you get into some kind of interesting questions. January 6th raised a lot of these questions. And again, ironically, given the fact that that this time, the Republicans, or some Republicans, are arguing that the rhetoric of Democrats created a situation that was ripe for violence, and there's an allegation of some responsibility for that, a lot of the discussion and even legal analysis in the wake of January 6th was about whether the rhetoric about the election, the so called Big Lie, that that created, plus some additional comments on the day by President Trump, created the conditions for January 6th, and does President Trump bear responsibility for that or not? And folks, both legally and from a kind of a broader ethical perspective, differ in the way that they view that. Again, I think it's a different question and a leap sometimes, to move from inflammatory rhetoric on the one hand, to responsibility for the consequences that are taken by people on the on the fringe, or sympathizers with your movement, but who may have poor judgment or a mental instability or whatever.
I'm thinking of past episodes of political violence and how they were handled, either by former President Trump or President Biden, or whoever, I'm thinking of the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and that was an incident that President Trump mocked on the campaign trail. So, this is the question is, is there a double standard that you think could be applied here? Is Trump going to maybe tone down now that he's been the victim of an of an attack himself? Or is this going to give him license to go ahead with even more vigor and more energy and more hostility in his political speech?
Oh, again, a couple of very interesting pieces. Great question. So, so certainly, the shoe has been on the other foot in the in the past, there was many would I think, agree, a kind of a demonization of Nancy Pelosi when she was Speaker of the House by MAGA media and a kind of a drum beat there about what kind of a person she was, and from their perspective, what a toxic influence on American politics. And then, of course, an unbalanced person took that more seriously than most might think that they should and acted. And former Speaker of the House Pelosi’s husband paid the consequences for that. I don't think President Trump has ever been known for the moderation or the civility of his rhetoric. So, when somebody like JD Vance, I gather, as a possible candidate for the Vice Presidency…
Ohio Senator JD Vance, yeah…
Yeah, comes out and castigates the Biden administration and the Biden campaign, more the campaign, for that kind of rhetoric, it is perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And there is a certain degree of irony in that.
What do you think the security response will be now around the country? Troughout this presidential campaign and possibly beyond, are federal agencies going to coordinate with state governments to step up security at capitols or campaign events or rallies or anything of the sort, do you think?
Sure, when something like this happens, it tends to create reverberations, many, many different kinds and certainly it will create a demand for additional security. One of the things that's unfortunate about it is that there is, to some extent, a balance or a tension between closeness to the public, intimacy, proximity and security. And so, when something like this happens, it creates additional distance between our politicians and sometimes other public figures, celebrities, and the public. So, I mean, if you think about the traditional image of a political campaign, it's about kissing babies, shaking hands, and it's becoming increasingly difficult, perhaps, to maintain security when candidates do that, and so they end up having to speak behind plexiglass, or to choose venues more carefully to increase security. So, I would expect that other campaign events on both sides are likely to have more elaborate security precautions, and that the distance between our politicians and political leaders and the people will increase. That's unfortunate, but I think it is to be expected, partly because if there are security lapses, it happens once, it's one thing. If it happens again, or if it's worse, that's not a good look for anybody. And so, the motivation increases, and there's a willingness to devote more resources. That's another piece of this puzzle, because security precautions are expensive. You know, if you think about the sheer number of campaign events, often multiple every day, and considerable attention is already paid to trying to make those events secure, in part on the basis of the security details that follow along, in part, cooperation between federal and local law enforcement with regard to examining locations and trying to identify potential threats. One of the things that was interesting about this event was that it was in an outdoor location, and where there apparently was a line of sight from the roof, adjacent buildings and structures, a shed, I think was the position that the shooter allegedly adopted. That's very difficult to protect someone when those kinds of locations are available and outside the security cordon. People who attend the rallies these days, I'm my understanding is that generally have metal detectors and other types of perimeter security, but somebody's outside the perimeter, more difficult. This case reminded me a little bit of the mass shooting in Las Vegas at the Harvard at the Harvest Music Festival a couple of years ago, where the shooter was up in a tall building hotel, I think, that had a line of sight to the music festival, and was shooting with a high powered weapon from fairly far away, and took quite a while to figure out where the shooter was and neutralize the the shooter in that case and a lot of people were killed. So similar dynamic here. Those types of outdoor locations under certain circumstances can be very hard to protect.
So, I wanted to ask you about the public perception and the political fallout of this. Will this event, the attempted assassination, have a galvanizing effect, one for Republicans, but two for Democrats. Just yesterday, all the conversation was about whether or not Joe Biden should stay in the race, and now, with this event happening, certainly, there's a new focus on national politics right now. But do you think that Democrats may say, ‘You know what, after this, we're going to stick with Joe Biden,’ do you think that's going to quiet some of that conversation now, as Republicans unify and line up behind former President Trump?
So, it's very interesting that you should say that. I'm a specialist in crisis leadership, and particularly the political perspective on crisis leadership. And when something like this happens, there are both political threats and political opportunities. For President Trump, he had an opportunity when this occurred. People are very concerned with and sometimes inspired by the way that leaders handle adversity. When Ronald Reagan was shot, his response, his maintenance of a sense of humor, and he was hurt very badly. He made a joke as they were willing him into surgery, ‘I hope the doctors are all Republicans.’ And the way that he handled that certainly strengthened his appeal as a leader, and ultimately was good for him politically. Donald Trump, through instinct or presence of mind, made the most of the media opportunity that this, this terrible event, deplorable event, provided and created an iconic moment.
That fist in the air photo.
The fist in the air, and apparently, according to some reports, the Secret Service, wanted to rush him out of there, keep him out of sight, just in case there was the threat wasn't completely neutralized, and he insisted on taking having a little pause, standing up, saying, ‘Fight, fight, fight,’ I think was what he said, and raised his fist. That's a moment on the order of George Bush on the rock pile at Ground Zero with the bull bullhorn. And, certainly, is likely to benefit Trump politically. It casts him in a kind of a heroic mode that I think would appeal to his political style and fits his image of himself, and the image that he curates and tries to project. So, some political benefit, I think, for Trump there. You're also certainly right that it's going to change the conversation at a moment when the Biden campaign clearly wanted to see that conversation change. So, those are just a couple of thoughts about how this might play out politically in terms of the election. But, there's another piece of it, as well. When there is a major crisis, there's an opportunity for a leader to unify the country, and we hear our calls from both sides of the aisle for that, at the moment. Will that last, is a really interesting question. When it comes to former president and candidate Trump, he has never been a unifier. That has not been his political strength. He's tended to promote and expect to benefit, I think, from political divisions. He's tended to court his core constituencies and sometimes widen the scope just a little bit, but has not been…bringing the country together is maybe not his forte, so to speak. And I see one of the great missed opportunities of the pandemic. Pandemic in our country was not handled well. We lost more people than a lot of other comparable countries, and it became a time of tremendous political division and neither, to be fair, neither Bush nor Biden really succeeded in bringing the country together. But you know, historically speaking, when there are events like that, that that are a threat to our country, whether it be biological, as in the case of the pandemic or times of war or major terrorism, like after 911, the country often comes together, and the best leaders will find a way to amplify that tendency and then make it more sustainable and build on that to make the country stronger, and I think that did not happen during the pandemic. Rather, our divisions made it much more difficult to do well. So, am I optimistic that that Trump will be profoundly changed by this experience and become another kind of leader unify the country, rather than unifying his movement? I guess I doubt it. I hope that there will be a reminder here. So, if hope triumphs over experience here, I guess I would say that I hope that it's a transformative moment that will remind us how important civility is. Take the political rhetoric down just a notch and have a more responsible conversation about where our country is and needs to go.Do I think that's going to happen. I don't know.
Eric Stern, thank you so much for coming in. I appreciate it.
Pleasure to be here.
