2026-04-27T22:20:55.232Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
一个月前，总统唐纳德·特朗普毫无掩饰地庆祝了前联邦调查局局长罗伯特·米勒的去世。“太好了，我很高兴他死了，”特朗普说，“他再也不能伤害无辜的人了！”
周一，特朗普及其白宫就本周末白宫记者协会晚宴遭遇枪击一事作出回应，谴责民主党人所谓的“出格”言论，并将他们贴上“仇恨邪教”的标签。
他们所谓这类言论的主要例证是什么？美国广播公司喜剧演员吉米·坎摩尔开了一个调侃特朗普可能死亡的玩笑。就在本周末枪击事件发生前几天，坎摩尔开玩笑说第一夫人梅拉尼娅·特朗普“容光焕发，像个即将成为寡妇的人”。
显然，特朗普庆祝一名公职人员的死亡是可以接受的；但吉米·坎摩尔调侃特朗普的死就不行。
尽管特朗普本人有着极其恶劣的言论记录，但本周末晚宴上的枪击事件再次让特朗普及其白宫将矛头指向民主党人的言论。共和党人基本上在重演去年查理·柯克遇刺事件后展开的指责游戏。
到目前为止，这一策略似乎并未奏效。民调显示，美国人普遍认为右翼的言论更具暴力性和危险性。
但情况正变得越来越模糊。
政治暴力事件几乎变成了一场“自选冒险”，许多人——无论左右两派——似乎都在接受关于政治暴力动机的诱人但虚假的叙事。
而这很可能会导向糟糕的结局。
特朗普早已丧失道德制高点
“这种政治暴力源于评论员、是的，民主党民选官员，甚至部分媒体人士对特朗普及其支持者的系统性妖魔化，”白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特周一表示，“11年来，针对特朗普总统的仇恨、持续且暴力的言论日复一日，这助长了这类暴力行为的正当性，将我们带至这个黑暗时刻。”
首先需要指出的是，在事件发生初期就对所谓的枪手动机作出确定性陈述，充其量不过是推测。通常情况下，后续会有报道显示行凶者存在精神健康问题。
被控袭击者科尔·托马斯·艾伦显然留下了线索，能揭示其潜在动机，包括在社交媒体上将特朗普与阿道夫·希特勒相提并论，并呼吁其他批评特朗普政府的人购买枪支。
但就像查理·柯克遇刺案一样，在了解更多细节之前，很难直接将其与某一方挂钩。
其次，尽管认为吉米·坎摩尔调侃特朗普死亡是个糟糕的主意完全合理，但特朗普本人早已在这类问题上丧失了道德制高点。对坎摩尔的玩笑或民主党人的言论大惊小怪，却避而不谈特朗普自己的言论，这是典型的选择性愤怒。
简而言之，特朗普越过红线的次数更多、程度更甚。最突出的例子是2021年1月6日国会山骚乱事件，当时他煽动支持者抗议，在暴力爆发后数小时保持沉默，最终造成多人死亡，但类似的例子还有很多。
具体而言：
- 他庆祝米勒去世。
- 去年12月罗布·莱纳及其妻子遇害后，他的回应极其冷漠无情。
- 尽管抱怨左翼将他与纳粹相提并论，但他在2017年将情报界比作“纳粹德国”，并在2024年称前总统乔·拜登的团队为“盖世太保政府”。
- 尽管抱怨左翼称他为“法西斯分子”，但他多年来一直用这个词攻击对手。
- 他调侃了针对南希·佩洛西丈夫的锤子袭击事件，该袭击造成其颅骨骨折和其他严重伤势。
- 他曾暗示“第二修正案支持者”会阻止希拉里·克林顿任命法官。
- 他转发了一名支持者的视频，视频中该支持者称“唯一好的民主党人是死去的民主党人”。
- 他转发了一名支持者的信息，警告人们要“武装起来”为特朗普“ physically fight（肉体抗争）”。
- 他赞扬了2020年一群支持者危险地包围拜登竞选巴士的行为。
- 他称赞蒙大拿州州长袭击一名记者的行为。
- 他多次提出假设，称其支持者会为了正义而奋起暴力反抗。
最后一点是尤为重要的主题。即便在特朗普政府在柯克遇刺后抨击民主党言论的同时，特朗普也在暗示右翼分子实施政治暴力是出于正当理由，而左翼人士则不然。
特朗普关于米勒去世的言论也是类似的论调。他似乎在说，庆祝死亡或许不得体，但想想这家伙造成了多大的破坏。
这正是许多人用来为政治暴力辩护的逻辑。
对近期政治暴力的扭曲认知
除此之外，本周末险些发生的悲剧让人们更加关注一个日益不祥的趋势：许多人对政治暴力施暴者的看法越来越扭曲。
多年来，知名共和党人动辄将悲剧归咎于左翼，往往是在真正证据出现之前，甚至在调查人员得出结论之前。现实情况是，许多实施或企图实施政治暴力的人，并不能简单地被贴上某一派别的标签。
时至今日，仍有许多人将特朗普遇刺未遂案嫌疑人托马斯·马修·克鲁克斯是左翼人士当作事实，尽管他登记为共和党人，其动机至今仍是个谜。明尼苏达州州议员梅利莎·霍特曼遇刺案也出现了类似的情况。
在左翼，即便一些知名人士也极力认为柯克的袭击者是“让美国再次伟大”的支持者或右翼“ groyper（怪诞右翼分子）”，但证据并不支持这一点。
这并不是说双方都同样有过错。近年来，知名共和党人显然比民主党人更容易急于下结论，包括许多右翼大人物推测保罗·佩洛西遇袭是由同性恋人的仇怨导致的。
但分裂的现实正成为一个日益严重的问题。
民调显示的结果
至少就目前而言，特朗普和共和党人认为民主党人是更恶劣的冒犯者的观点，似乎并未得到公众的认同。
去年10月，也就是柯克遇刺后不久的一项盖洛普民调显示，69%的美国人表示共和党人在使用煽动性语言方面做得太过火，而认为民主党人做得太过火的比例为60%。
但两党绝大多数人都倾向于将实际暴力归咎于对方。
最近的公共宗教研究所民调显示，72%的共和党人认为民主党人应对大多数政治暴力负责，而73%的民主党人认为共和党人应负主要责任。
（数据表明，几十年来右翼发动的政治暴力实际上更多，不过有证据显示，自特朗普重新担任总统以来，左翼的暴力行为有所增加。）
而且，人们越来越将言论与暴力联系起来。
自2011年加布里埃尔·吉福兹遇袭以来，美国全国广播公司新闻的民调 repeatedly asked（反复询问）受访者，重大政治暴力事件更多是由“精神失常者”还是“极端政治言论”引发的。
认为政治言论应承担更多责任的比例从2011年的24%，升至2017年（国会棒球场枪击事件后）的41%，2022年（佩洛西遇袭事件后）的49%，2024年（特朗普遇刺未遂事件后）的54%，到去年（柯克遇刺事件后）的61%。
值得注意的是，两党多数人都认为言论应为柯克遇刺事件承担更多责任——54%的民主党人和73%的共和党人持此观点。
但双方似乎都很可能将责任归咎于对方的言论，而非己方。
因此，我们面临的局面是，两党都将对方视为日益危险的言论的始作俑者，而他们越来越将这种言论与实际暴力直接挂钩。
这不是降温的良方；这只会让政治走向越来越黑暗的境地。
Trump’s hypocritical crusade on violent rhetoric — and the country’s emerging split reality
2026-04-27T22:20:55.232Z / CNN
A month ago, President Donald Trump unabashedly celebrated the death of former FBI Director Robert Mueller. “Good, I’m glad he’s dead,” Trump said. “He can no longer hurt innocent people!”
On Monday, Trump and his White House responded to a shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend by decrying Democrats’ supposedly beyond-the-pale rhetoric and labeling them a “cult of hatred.”
Their chief example of this kind of rhetoric? ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel telling a joke that made light of Trump’s potential demise. Days before this weekend’s shooting, Kimmel joked that first lady Melania Trump had “a glow like an expectant widow.”
Apparently, it’s OK for Trump to celebrate a public servant’s death; it is not OK for Jimmy Kimmel to joke about Trump’s.
The shooting at this weekend’s dinner has yet again led Trump and his White House to focus on Democrats’ rhetoric, despite Trump’s own demonstrated history of extremely ugly rhetoric. Republicans are largely repeating a blame game they waged after Charlie Kirk’s assassination last year.
Thus far, the strategy hasn’t appeared to work. Polls show Americans generally view the right’s rhetoric as more violent and dangerous.
But the water is getting muddier.
Episodes of political violence have almost become a choose-your-own-adventure in which many people — on both sides — seem to embrace attractive-but-false narratives about the motivations behind political violence.
And that’s liable to lead to ugly places.
Trump long ago ceded the moral high ground
“This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of Trump and his supporters by commentators, yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party, and even some in the media,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday. “This hateful and constant and violent rhetoric directed at President Trump, day after day after day for 11 years, has helped to legitimize this violence and bring us to this dark moment.”
The first thing to note is that definitive statements about alleged shooter motivations this early are generally speculative, at best. Often, reports surface that suggest the perpetrators had mental health issues.
The accused attacker, Cole Tomas Allen, apparently left a paper trail that provides clues about his potential motivation, including social media posts that compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and encouraged others critical of his presidency to purchase guns.
But as with Charlie Kirk’s assassin, it’s difficult to draw such a direct line until you know more.
Secondly, while it’s completely valid to think it was a terrible idea for Kimmel to joke about Trump’s death, the president long ago ceded the moral high ground on such things. Pearl clutching over Kimmel’s jokes or Democrats’ rhetoric without addressing Trump’s own rhetoric is a remarkable exercise in selective outrage.
Trump has, quite simply, crossed the line both more forcefully and more often. There’s the prominent example of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, when he encouraged his supporters to protest and stayed silent for hours as violence broke out, resulting in multiple deaths, but there’s plenty of other examples, too.
To wit:
- He celebrated Mueller’s death.
- He responded in remarkably callous fashion to the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife in December.
- Despite complaining about the left making Nazi comparisons, he in 2017 compared the intelligence community to “Nazi Germany,” and in 2024 called former President Joe Biden’s team a “Gestapo administration.”
- Despite complaining about the left calling him a “fascist,” he spent years using that word against his foes.
- He made light of a hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband that left him with a fractured skull and other serious injuries.
- He mused about “Second Amendment people” blocking Hillary Clinton from appointing judges.
- He reposted video of a supporter saying, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”
- He reposted a message from a supporter warning about people rising up to “physically fight” for Trump.
- He praised a convoy of supporters who dangerously surrounded Biden’s campaign bus in 2020.
- He praised Montana’s governor for assaulting a reporter.
- He has repeatedly raised hypotheticals in which his supporters rise up in justified violence.
That last one is a particularly important theme. Even as Trump’s White House was assailing Democrats’ rhetoric after Kirk’s death, Trump suggested right-wingers who get politically violent do so for valid reasons, while left-wingers do not.
Trump’s comments on Mueller’s death were in a similar vein. Maybe it’s gauche to celebrate death, he seemed to be saying, but just think about how much damage this guy did.
It’s the kind of calculus that plenty of others have used to justify political violence.
A skewed picture of recent political violence
Beyond that, the avoided tragedy this weekend has cast a spotlight on an increasingly inauspicious trend: Lots of people are developing a warped view of who perpetrated political violence.
Prominent Republicans have for years leapt to attach tragedies to the left, often before there’s real evidence and before investigators have reached conclusions. The reality is that many people who commit or attempt political violence don’t fall cleanly into one label or another.
To this day, many state it as a fact that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks was a leftist, even though he was a registered Republican who remains something of a black box. A similar dynamic played out with Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman’s assassin.
On the left, even some prominent figures strained to believe Kirk’s assassin was a MAGA supporter or a right-wing “groyper,” which the evidence does not back up.
That’s not to say the two sides are equal-opportunity offenders. Prominent Republicans have clearly jumped to conclusions much more than Democrats in recent years, including when many major right-wingers theorized that Paul Pelosi’s attack was the result of a gay lover’s feud.
But the split reality is a growing problem.
What polling shows
At least for now, Trump and the GOP’s purported belief that Democrats are the worse offenders doesn’t seem to be shared by the public.
A Gallup poll in October, shortly after Kirk’s assassination, showed 69% of Americans said Republicans had gone too far in using inflammatory language, compared to 60% who said the same of Democrats.
But the two sides were overwhelmingly likely to blame the other for the actual violence.
A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll showed 72% of Republicans said Democrats were responsible for most political violence, while 73% of Democrats said Republicans were most responsible.
(The data suggests it’s actually the right that has perpetrated more political violence for decades, though there is evidence the left has closed the gap since Trump returned as president.)
And there’s an increasing perceived linkage between rhetoric and violence.
Since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in 2011, NBC News polling has repeatedly asked people whether major examples of political violence were driven more by “a disturbed person” or “extreme political rhetoric.”
The percentage who blamed political rhetoric more has increased from 24% in 2011, to 41% in 2017 (after the congressional baseball shooting), to 49% in 2022 (the Pelosi attack), to 54% in 2024 (Trump’s assassination attempt), to 61% last year (Kirk’s assassination).
Remarkably, majorities of both sides agreed that rhetoric was more to blame for Kirk’s assassination — 54% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans.
But it seems quite possible both sides might be attaching it to the other side’s rhetoric, rather than their own.
So what we have is a situation in which the two sides each see one another as the culprits behind growing dangerous rhetoric that they increasingly connect directly to actual violence.
That’s not a recipe for taking the temperature down; it’s a recipe for politics to descend into darker and darker places.
发表回复