A Tale of Two Rhetorics: How Trump’s Violent Language Toward Liz Cheney Reflects a Dangerous Darkening of Political Discourse
As we approach Election Day, a stark contrast emerges in how language is used by those vying for power. Words hold weight, especially when they come from leaders. They can either uplift and unify or, as we have seen recently, descend into dangerous realms of hostility and violence. Former President Trump’s recent remarks about Liz Cheney — suggesting she would understand foreign policy differently if she had “guns trained on her face” — demonstrate a disturbing trend: the weaponization of language as a means to incite, intimidate, and divide.
Trump’s Language: More Than Criticism, a Threat
At first glance, Trump’s statement could be read as harsh criticism, labeling Cheney a “radical war hawk.” His words might seem to target her stance on foreign policy, suggesting she has an overly aggressive position. But when we analyze his choice of imagery — “guns trained on her face” — it becomes clear this is far more than a policy critique. This language invokes physical violence, planting an image of Cheney facing literal mortal threat. It’s a tactic designed to vilify and intimidate, appealing to the darker instincts of fear, anger, and revenge.
The rhetoric goes deeper than just a metaphor. Trump’s use of this imagery is intentional, stoking a brand built on defiance, aggression, and the casting of opponents not merely as political adversaries but as enemies deserving of punishment. By calling for Cheney to “understand” warfare with “guns trained on her,” he is not engaging in a debate about policy but rather painting a picture that invites animosity and hostility toward her as a person. This isn’t the language of disagreement; it’s the language of dehumanization and threat.
Biden’s Words: Critiquing Divisiveness with a Call to Truth
Contrast this with President Biden’s recent statements, where he referred to “garbage” in the media space as reflective of certain figures associated with Trump. Here, Biden wasn’t just speaking about Trump but addressing a whole chorus of dangerous and divisive rhetoric echoed on that stage. The “garbage” didn’t all come from Trump’s mouth, and Biden’s critique was directed at a broader set of voices promoting anger, misinformation, and extremism.
Biden’s language, though pointed, was an appeal to the public to reject falsehoods and fearmongering. His intent was clear: to call out harmful narratives, not to attack people themselves with dehumanizing or violent imagery. Biden’s words underscored a defense of democratic values and unity, offering a reminder to rise above a landscape clouded by dangerous rhetoric. In this context, Biden’s criticism served as a call for clarity, responsibility, and truth.
Two Uses of Language: Light vs. Dark
Here, we see two vastly different uses of language. One seeks to illuminate, to bring truth to the surface, and to protect the values that underpin our society. The other dabbles in darkness, choosing language that encourages aggression, stirs hostility, and implies that opponents deserve to be silenced or even harmed. Biden’s words, though direct, are an appeal to clarity and unity. Trump’s, on the other hand, weaponize imagery to make his opponent appear deserving of harm, inviting followers to imagine, if not act upon, a violent impulse.
The Real-World Consequences of Violent Rhetoric
When violent imagery is invoked in political speech, the line between rhetoric and reality blurs. Trump’s language provides a template for those inclined toward hostility, implicitly encouraging them to take matters into their own hands. His words aren’t just symbolic; they are fuel for a fire, lighting up darker desires in those who already see opponents as threats. This isn’t freedom of speech; it’s a dangerous game of incitement, using words as weapons to escalate the stakes from policy differences to personal animosities.
In contrast, Biden’s language urges voters to critically examine misinformation, to reject hostility, and to embrace unity. His rhetoric doesn’t paint opponents as monsters to be destroyed but as players within a democratic system that thrives on truth and accountability.
Choosing Words, Choosing Values
As we approach this pivotal election, the choice is clear. We can choose leaders who wield language to defend peace, truth, and unity, or we can choose those who thrive on division, anger, and the implications of violence. One path leads toward light, integrity, and hope, while the other leads toward darkness, conflict, and fear. The weight of this choice lies not only in policies but in the very words leaders use to shape our nation’s future. Words matter. And when leaders use them to incite rather than inspire, the damage they leave behind can be lasting.
Yes, the author is aware that Joe Biden is no longer the candidate; Kamala Harris is now running. But there is no need for ‘whataboutism.’ Yet imagine my fury when I tracked down both stories and saw the blatant mischaracterization of the positions held by Harris versus Trump. We are right to hold Trump accountable for the garbage his surrogates spew, just as we should not shy away from examining Harris in light of Biden’s statements. But why must we parse the words of these two men as if they stand on equal ground, when one side clearly invokes violent tendencies and vile rhetoric against Americans, while the other tries — against a rising tide of hostility — to call them out for it, to warn of the real harm it will bring? The media frames this as mere opposition, that there are two equal sides, while failing to expose or reveal the radical difference between the two visions: one is rooted in incitement, the other in integrity.
