Political violence not new in US politics, but opportunities to lower the temperature remain

This weekend’s attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump is not a unique event in U.S. politics. Politically motivated violence, including attempts on the lives of presidents and other elected officials, has a long history in the United States.

Political violence has also touched ordinary citizens, members of Congress, law enforcement officers charged with protecting our leaders and others.

Jeffrey Engel, David Gergen director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University and author of the forthcoming book, “Seeking Monsters to Destroy: How America Goes to War, From Washington to Biden and Beyond,” joined Texas Standard to discuss. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.

This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Texas Standard: When you heard about this incident in Pennsylvania, what came to your mind as someone who knows about the history of political violence?

Jeffrey Engel: Well, I think, like all Americans, I was shocked and saddened. And the first thought that went through my mind was not just that, “my goodness, I hope that former President Trump is okay.” But more importantly, I hope he’s okay because there is a really fundamental difference in the way that history is played out between presidential assassination attempts and, unfortunately, successful assassinations.

You know, I think most Americans in the last 48 hours perhaps have been somewhat surprised to learn that Theodore Roosevelt was shot while a presidential candidate in 1912 and that Franklin Roosevelt was shot at when president-elect in 1933. And those are really basically footnotes to history at this point, because thank goodness they were unsuccessful.

The ones that we remember that really changed history – and more disturbingly, the ones that can set off a cycle of more and more violence – are the ones which are unfortunately successful. So I prayed not only for President Trump’s health, but also for his health so that it would not start a new cycle of violence.

» RELATED: ‘Horrible and scary’: Texas leaders condemn shooting at Donald Trump rally

I think a lot of people, though, remember 1981. That was what a lot of folks thought immediately: the attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan, in which he was gravely wounded, although a lot of that information was kept from the public for many hours – in fact, days, until it became clear just how serious the attack was. Are there other echoes that come to mind?

Reagan, I think, is a very interesting case not only for the point that you pointed out – that the American public really didn’t know how gravely wounded he was for some time. More importantly, he also got at least a temporary boost in his poll numbers. He was having a very difficult first year as president when he was shot, and that basically gave him, if you will, a legislative reprieve for a few weeks and months.

But more importantly, and I think it’s important to remember as we learn more about the shooter in this case, we learned that President Reagan’s would-be assassin didn’t really go after him for political reasons. He tried to shoot the president in order to impress Jodie Foster, if I remember correctly.

And so, as a consequence, when we look at this immediate case, our first reaction whenever a political figure is fired upon is to say, “well, it must be from one of their political opponents.” And it may well be. But in Reagan’s case, at least, we discovered ultimately there really was no politics behind it. It was just a sad case all around.

You know, Texans have a special connection to another event involving political violence, of course – the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which took place in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza.

Something I was thinking about along those lines: It has been written that Kennedy was shot at a time when, in Texas, there was a lot of animus directed at the president and members of his administration. That climate was incredibly volatile. How do you think that informs the way that we see what happened with this attempted assassination on former President Trump?

You know, I think President Kennedy’s assassination was really a shock to the system for the country, but unfortunately, a shock that kept coming given the subsequent assassinations of his brother and then of Martin Luther King and others during the 1960s. Remember, the image we all have Kennedy is of him riding in a convertible, which tells us that despite all the political-violent rhetoric, people still presume that there was an aura of invincibility around the president.

Well, here we are today in a period where there has been extraordinary violent rhetoric, though comparatively little political violence thus far in our current cycle. What that tells me is that people need to remember that political-violent rhetoric can generate actual violence over time.

And people are typically shocked when that happens, as we were all shocked when President Trump was was shot at. So that suggests to me that we can’t control what individual is going to decide to take matters into their own hands.

But at the end of the day, one thing that we can control is our own language. I do hope that politicians on all sides and community leaders on all sides will use this as an opportunity to tone down the rhetoric, including the rhetoric, frankly, that had been coming out of the Trump presidential campaign.

You know, there’s a real irony here in that President Trump has done more than almost anyone, I think, in our current political environment to amp up the angry rhetoric in our politics over the last decade. And it’s just a shame, unfortunately, that now someone has chosen to act in a violent way.

» RELATED: Sid Miller hopes ‘vitriol will be turned down’ after witnessing Trump shooting

Professor, you were talking just a moment ago about the rhetoric and the fact that we can’t do anything to mitigate the threats unless we are sort of looking inward. I’m finding that a lot of people are doing that right now, judging by the Sunday talk shows and much of the commentary. At the same time, how concerned are you that this could have a copycat effect?

You know, to be completely honest, as a citizen and as a historian, I am surprised it’s taken this long in our current environment for something this awful to happen. We have been ramping up the rhetoric for the last decade-plus – I would argue actually we’ve been ramping up the rhetoric dramatically since Bill Clinton’s presidency – where both sides have suggested, for their own reasons, that the other presidential incumbents, in particular, are illegitimate, are not real presidents, and therefore don’t need to be listened to or respected.

So I am concerned that this will spark a cycle of violence, a cycle of retribution in many ways, which is, of course, why I’m glad that President Trump was not injured badly in this case, though of course, we all send our sympathies to those who were.

But history suggests that violence escalates upon itself. That’s actually one of the points that the great military theorist [Carl] von Clausewitz used to point out that when there is a violent act, the next violent act is usually a little bit more violence in order to make the point that they care more.

So I am very glad that if we can stay off that violence escalator, that, I think, is the only thing that we can hope for as Americans, because there’s no good exit point to that.

And it seems like there are people, a lot of folks in political leadership on both sides of the aisle, who are recognizing this very point that you are making. And perhaps this is a good point to shift our attention to how President Biden has tried to handle this situation.

He had an Oval Office address last night in which he condemned political violence. He did mention other acts of political violence, including the Jan. 6 incident at the Capitol and an attempted kidnapping of Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. From your perspective, could he be accused of politicizing this moment, and how do you read that?

I very much hope he politicizes this moment, but not as in terms of partisanship, not in order to help his campaign, but to remember that politics involves us all. And I hope that he takes this as an opportunity. And I’m very glad that he has thus far. And I hope former President Trump does the same at [the Republican National Convention] this week: take this as a moment to speak as the leaders of their parties, to their constituents.

No one has a bigger voice in this than the president and the former presidents, especially as nominees of their party. And each of them has a real responsibility, I think, to tone down the language. And I’m very glad that President Biden decided to use an Oval Office address, really reminding Americans that the Oval Office, which belongs to all of us, no matter which party you are a member of, is an almost a sacred place, if you will, for Americans to come together.

And I do hope that President Trump’s team and himself will take the opportunity to look at the words that he was planning to use at his address coming up and say if there’s any hint of animosity, any hint of anger, or any hint of violence in those words, that they remove them.

We only get one shot at shutting down the cycle of violence, and this is a key moment to do so.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.