Third Way: To What Extent Should We Hold Political Leaders Accountable For Their Supporters’ Violent Actions?
Wong Yu Liang
On January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump delivered a speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., preceding a rally by his supporters in opposition to the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory. He framed it as a battle for democracy which could be won in a very simple way. “All Vice President [Mike] Pence has to do,” he told the fired-up crowd, “is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president, and you are the happiest people.”
The idea was for Pence to unilaterally throw away electoral slates, leaving it up to state legislatures to decide the election in Trump’s favor. Whether he believed that Pence was Constitutionally allowed to do so appeared not too relevant: “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules,” he remarked.
The disappointed supporters of Trump and his fictitious election fraud claims ended up storming the United States Capitol within the hour, and some among them chanted “hang Mike Pence.” This was no accident, but rather in accordance with what they believed was the real source of their problems — Pence's negligence to secure Trump's rightful win.
Trump would end up being impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” While ultimately, he would condemn the attack in the following days, it is impossible to ignore his behavior before and during the Capitol riot. Even Kevin McCarthy, who was the leader of the House Republicans, said that Trump “bears responsibility” for the events which unfolded that day.
But how do we arrive at this conclusion? What are the factors we should look towards to determine whether a politician is responsible for supporters’ violent actions? It is worth examining a few other examples before returning to the case of Trump and January 6. From there, the criteria for responsibility will become clearer.
In some instances, it is obvious that the politician in the spotlight after violence from a supporter bears no responsibility. The 2019 Dayton shooter, for example, was a supporter of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But it becomes clear upon learning more about him how he had serious mental health issues. As the FBI concluded, he had an “enduring fascination with mass violence.” Moreover, the victims of the shooting were not political targets.
The same cannot be said for the shooter who, in 2017, opened fire on Republican Congressmen at a practice for the annual Congressional Baseball Game and critically wounded Rep. Steve Scalise. The shooter had a history of affiliation with the left, volunteering for the Bernie Sanders campaign and writing letters to the editor chastising Republicans.
Even here, while there was a political motive it becomes clear that Sanders should not be considered responsible. A Secret Service report on the shooter outlined numerous “stressors” in his life, including a foster child who commit suicide, financial concerns, marital problems, and quickness to anger because of diabetes. Scalise acknowledged as much, noting that Sanders is not responsible and that “clearly, what this guy did was deranged, and there is no justification for it.”
Obviously, the Congressional baseball shooting was more tied to the shooter’s mental state and, importantly, a direct link cannot be made from Sanders’s rhetoric to the shooter’s motive for this violence.
Likewise with the man who invaded Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s home and attacked her husband. While there is a more compelling case to be made for linking his actions to Trump’s rhetoric, it is worth noting that he was a supporter of QAnon conspiracy theories, which Trump was not necessarily touting.
However, such a connection can be made when it comes to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. This was in the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections, during which Trump repeatedly raised alarm over the caravans and the “invasion” at the border. The shooter ended up being motivated by conspiracies surrounding HIAS, a Jewish organization which helps refugees. Hours before the shooting, he posted on Gab that “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
We can point directly to Trump’s rhetoric as a driving factor of that shooting during that midterm campaign season. Some may stop here and say that this would be the point at which a politician can fairly be considered responsible (the Pittsburgh shooter appears to not be a supporter of Trump but nevertheless there was a clear link between Trump’s rhetoric and the shooter’s actions). Still, there is one more factor worth considering before returning to the case of Jan. 6 and the broader conclusions that can be made surrounding the metrics for responsibility.
Reverend Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader known for his more provocative approach, admitted regarding the Crown Heights riot that “our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions and played to the extremists.” During this riot Yankel Rosenbaum, a Jewish student, was killed. His brother, Norman, responded by writing that “Sharpton never called upon the rioters to stop their anti-Semitism-inspired violence. He never called on the rioters to go home. To the contrary, he stirred them up.”
A strong case can be made that Sharpton should be held responsible for having fanned the flames of violence during those riots. This also proves useful in informing whether another political leader, Trump, should be accountable for fanning the flames of another riot — that of Jan. 6.
Having considered these varying instances of political violence as it relates to political leadership, we can establish three main factors, two of which should be true to determine someone accountable:
The actions of the individual can be directly traced to the words of the political figure,
The political figure directs a threat towards a specific individual who in turn is targeted by violence,
The political figure provides fuel for the violence as it is ongoing.
Having established these, let us return to the case of Trump and Jan. 6, and whether his impeachment was justified in terms of him being responsible for the events of that day.
Rioters chanted “hang Mike Pence,” which is directly connected to the message that Trump was sending to his followers: that Pence has a simple duty which can save democracy that he is in the process of failing to abide by. This corresponds to point number one, for Trump’s words had an immediate consequence.
After the insurrection attempt, Trump tweeted that “these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away.” He therefore appeared to acknowledge that his rhetoric was to blame for the violence that day because the riot was the inevitable outcome of his lies.
Point number three, and arguably even point number two, are met when Trump posted a tweet during the riot that rebuked Pence for his lack of courage to enact his plan to overturn the election. Point number 3 is also met when considering Trump’s inaction during many hours of the insurrection.
Taking these three factors into account demonstrates Trump’s responsibility for Jan. 6 and can prove a useful tool when determining at what point we should be concerned with the connection between political leaders’ words and the actions of their followers.