From the Center
On Saturday afternoon, this was going to be a column about Donald Trump’s running mate. But then the world turned upside down—again—and the failed assassination attempt against Trump upended the most unpredictable presidential campaign in history—again.
RELATED: Were Media Outlets Biased or Responsible in Initial Trump Shooting Coverage?
The immediate reaction from many hard-core partisans on both sides of the aisle was to rush to their familiar battle stations with accusations and insults. For a time that evening, it appeared that even a near-tragic act of violence against one of the two major parties’ presidential nominees would become nothing more than yet another intractable and uncompromising argument between Red and Blue America.
But within hours, both Trump and Joe Biden had issued statements calling for unity. Many other of the nation’s political leaders struck a similar tone. At the time this was written, roughly 24 hours after the shooting, it appeared that the shooting could actually, incredibly, lead to a lowering of tensions in our ongoing cultural and political wars rather than an additional incitement. It seemed somewhat that Trump’s near-death experience could restore a modicum of sanity and comity to the increasingly ugly and fractious political environment that we have been enduring.
The parties’ true believers have not yielded. But Biden and especially Trump possess the ability to guide their followers in a less confrontational direction, should they choose. It’s unlikely to happen, but both men and their advisors may see a strategic benefit in taking this path.
RELATED: Media Scrutinized for Coverage of Shooting at Trump Rally
The challenges that Biden has faced since last month’s debate have forced him on the defensive, constantly forcing him to explain that he is still capable of governing. But his speech to the nation on Sunday night allowed him to present himself as a healer, the type of leader who can bring people together. This is a logical outgrowth of the “return to normalcy” message that Biden used so effectively in 2020. If nothing else, it’s better than talking about his age, his acuity and his health.
Trump’s transition would be less natural, given how he has always relied so heavily on the aggressive and combative persona that motivates his followers. But this is the first time in Trump’s years on the national political stage when it can be argued that he is not running from behind. Through both of his previous campaigns, he was an underdog who knew that the best way to attract attention was to launch attacks on any available target. Even before last weekend’s shooting, he had enjoyed a small but consistent lead in the polls for over a year. His personality might not allow him to maintain the role of unifier that he has presented since Saturday night, but there is a strategic case to be made that a front-runner can benefit from a less belligerent approach – especially a front-runner who has just survived an assassination attempt.
Biden’s campaign quickly ceased most of its public activity, taking down their advertisements, pausing their fundraising appeals, and postponing a speech that Biden was scheduled to give in on the first day of the Republican convention. And Trump has been rewriting his convention speech to reflect this new landscape, and that his advisors are telling other speakers to adjust their remarks accordingly.
Let’s not overestimate the chances of this shift sustaining through the campaign. Biden and his team have decided that the most effective way to alleviate concerns about his age and cognitive skills is to ramp up his criticisms of Trump. (When asked about his strategy last week, the president’s response was “attack, attack, attack.”) The night before Trump was shot, Biden held what many observers felt was his most effective and inspirational rally of the campaign, notable mainly for the harshness of his denunciations of his predecessor. Giving up that approach just as it is beginning to achieve results would be a very difficult decision.
And Trump is… Trump. Even if many candidates ease off their opponent when running ahead, there’s no evidence that Trump would want—or have the ability—to take even a slightly high road.
Given the immense stakes in this election, neither can—nor should—avoid criticizing each other, and the rhetoric in which those criticisms are contained will invariably escalate. But societal propriety and common decency would seem to demand at least a partial de-escalation of the partisan wars that came perilously close to resulting in the death of a former president.
Want to talk about this topic more? Join Dan for his webinar, “The Dan Schnur Political Report." And read more of Dan’s writing at www.danschnurpolitics.com.
Dan Schnur is a Professor at the University of California – Berkeley, Pepperdine University, and the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses in politics, communications and leadership. Dan is a No Party Preference voter, but previously worked on four presidential and three gubernatorial campaigns, serving as the national Director of Communications for the 2000 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator John McCain and the chief media spokesman for California Governor Pete Wilson. He has a Center bias.
This piece was reviewed and edited by Clare Ashcraft, Bridging & Bias Specialist (Center bias).
