Increased violent rhetoric threatens America

In recent events, Kari Lake, the former Republican nominee for Arizona governor, warned those standing in opposition to Donald Trump: “If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have to go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the N.R.A.” She delivered this rather alarming statement to a cacophony of cheers. She is not the only one unafraid of promoting violence. A while back, in response to a Bud Light promotional video made by transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney, singer Kid Rock deemed it appropriate to expend an exorbitant number of rounds lighting up a few dozen cans of the beer in question.
Do I believe either of these people pose an immediate and direct danger to those they are targeting? No. For those of you who did not see the video, Kid Rock’s aim is horrendous. Additionally, I have no belief either of these individuals ever intend to pick up a firearm and use it for a cause that matters, much less to go after the “fake news media” or Anheuser Busch. However, they are far from the only ones who have used words, images and videos to advocate the normalization of violence in situations where violence is very much not necessary. Whether it be Donald Trump or anyone else, what I said earlier applies to most of these high-profile figures: they lack the combination of courage, seriousness, desire and skill to conduct any violent action on behalf of any significant cause. The problem is that some of their followers do.
In a recent report by Politico, one in three Americans who identify as either a Democrat or Republican believe political violence “could be justified” to further the aims of their political parties. If the survey could be extrapolated to the entire party-affiliated populace, that means 50 million or more Americans believe internal violence can sometimes be used for political goals. About a third of Americans surveyed report owning a gun according to a Gallup poll, so we can expect at least 16 million people who are both armed and have such beliefs (likely more, since the traits of owning a gun and believing violence is acceptable in such cases are probably correlated). For a populace so weary of war abroad, we seem to be all too content with and capable of waging war on each other.
An article by Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution provides further insight into the dangers of violent rhetoric, beyond obvious cases like that of Trump and the Jan. 6 riots. Although leaders and celebrities may think their words end when they utter them, retweets, rebroadcasts and requotes all continue to spread and immortalize their words to millions of followers. Normalizing such rhetoric is one step on the road to normalizing corresponding behavior. For a few, it may be the necessary catalyst to validate violent actions they may have felt were socially stigmatized before, but now are seemingly – or even actually – mainstream. Thus, violent rhetoric does not do anything to change views – it rather emboldens perpetrators to act violently on behalf of existing views. For example, one can see the correlation between anti-Muslim discourse by Donald Trump and a subsequent increase in hate crimes against Muslims. It is also just common sense – the more people talk about something as if it is acceptable, the more likely others are to view the act as acceptable.
No matter how much I agree with their views, I would disavow any leader who even “jokingly” discusses violence against their opponents. I would deem any American who treats violence as an unacceptable method of internal political discourse as a more qualified leader. I hope all Americans will do the same.