Letters – President Trump, media vitriol and political violence

Re: “Assassination attempts too common — We must reduce media vitriol against political leaders,” by Talmage Boston, May 9 Opinion. 

Boston says assassination attempts against the president have increased due to over-reporting by the media and lack of sufficient security. He says the volume of vitriol aimed at the president by the media and politicians should be turned down and that “unhinged rage directed at a political opponent serves no useful purpose and might just inspire a psychopath to try to kill someone.”  

He is either uninformed or willfully ignoring the “unhinged rage” that the president delivers near daily about his perceived political enemies. From his comments about Mexicans being murderers and rapists, to insinuating Gen. Mark Milley should be put to death, to his memes of Joe Biden hogtied in the back of a truck, to his constant insulting and demeaning language towards women and minorities, to accusing Barack Obama and others of treason, to his failure to disavow white supremacy groups, President Donald Trump constantly delivers unhinged rage to this nation and the world.  

Boston is right. Political violence is all too common. But to place the blame on the media and political opponents, while ignoring Trump’s hate-filled rants and rages, is wrong, disingenuous, and dangerous. 

Suzan Staley, Flower Mound 

Boston’s essay evokes several low points in our country’s history, and I agree with his thesis that mainstream and internet media commentators and politicians contribute to the current conflicts and divisions in our society generally and specifically to the attempts on President Donald Trump’s life.  

However, Boston misses an important point. Unless and until Trump stops his own “unhinged rage” (Boston’s term) aimed at people and institutions that disagree with him, the “egregious situation” addressed by Boston is unlikely to change. 

Clayton Devin, East Dallas 

Kudos to Talmage Boston for summarizing in one sentence what numerous news channels spend hours and hours of programming talking around: “Strong, firm, maturely worded criticism of a president’s policies is absolutely appropriate in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, but unhinged rage directed at a political opponent serves no useful purpose and might just inspire a psychopath to try to kill someone.” 

As a presidential historian, I know Boston knows our form of government is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic where the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and we elect representatives to implement it. 

Unfortunately, most people today have either forgotten their civics lessons or never had exposure to them in the first place. 

Greg Polito, North Dallas 

Like Boston, I am old enough to remember the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and also John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. as well as the attempts on the lives of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. And, of course, more recently, the three attempts on the life of President Donald Trump.  

Furthermore, I agree that the vitriol that seems to fuel such attacks needs to be toned down. Unfortunately, in Trump’s case, far too much of the vindictiveness is coming from the president himself, who routinely uses inflammatory language to demonize both individuals and entire groups of American citizens who he views not just as political opponents but enemies.  

The president’s own chaotic, self-centered behavior and disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law and common decency likewise fans the flames of discontent.  

If we are to have more civil discourse in this country than we do now, it’s the White House that needs to set an example. Regrettably, I’m not hopeful that’s going to happen. 

Steven R. Butler, Richardson 

Part of me agrees with Boston’s column on the occurrence of assassination attempts on political figures throughout history. Our memory of assassination starts with the horrible events on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. 

First, the author wants the vitriol speech to be turned down from the press. Why don’t we start with the president and his many unhinged comments and his corrosive rhetoric? 

Perhaps the common denominator in the uptick of violence is coming from the White House and the current administration. The president is supposed to be an example to the nation and the world, but insults demean not only individuals, but our allies and even the pope. 
 
There are other possible reasons for why assassination attempts are increasing — easy access to firearms, lack of access to mental health care, fear of immigrants or people of different faiths, mistruths and lies propagated on social media. 

The problem with the increase in the number of attacks on public figures is more than vitriol in the press. 

Richard and Kathy Gaca, Keller 

Boston gave a plan for suppressing presidential assassination attempts. He indicates gun control legislation would be futile because “With the overabundance of guns available to the irrational people in our country, no gun control legislation is capable of minimizing the risk of assassination.”  

Boston’s statement is strong evidence that current policies are indeed not working, and contrary to his case, an overabundance of guns available to irrational people screams out for better legislation. 

Taking Boston literally, I doubt most policymakers expect gun legislation alone to minimize the risk. Rather, an achievable goal while still strongly respecting the Second Amendment would be to mitigate gun risk in combination with other forms of risk reduction. Boston disappointingly seems to discard any role for gun legislation in solving the near crisis he discusses. 

Further, Boston’s proposals for suppressing both press coverage of assassination attempts and criticism of presidential policies may infringe upon the First Amendment. 

Who determines what an assassination attempt is or what’s unhinged — a lunatic or a psychopath? 

Mark Lehrman, Dallas 

Nowhere in Boston’s opinion piece on threats to the president is there even the slightest admission that the central character here (the president) bears any responsibility for the level of political discourse that exists today.  

Trump has relentlessly attacked any unfavorable media coverage of himself, calling them fake news, an enemy of the people and even treasonous.  

All of that is lost on Boston. It seems like he’d prefer we all just bow our heads and say please, sir, may I have another. 

Jon Hasenohrl, Corinth 

Re: “Damaging our republic,” by Crawford Long, Tuesday Letters. 

Thank you to Crawford Long, who had the courage to clearly illustrate how and why Talmage Boston’s Opinion piece was one-sided. Usually, we can trust that Boston’s writing is intelligent and informed. 

Has he simply not seen the effects of Trump’s presidency on the American public?

Coarsening of the English language, ridiculing disabled people, not to mention open corruption and really, a $400 million jet as a gift, which the U.S. is expected to upgrade at a cost to U.S. taxpayers? 

The threats to perceived enemies, members of the press and to U.S. members of Congress for stating the truth? Wake up, Mr. Boston. You can do better than this. 

Ellen Taylor Seldin, Dallas