JD Vance, a senator from Ohio and running mate to former President Donald Trump, delivered a substantial commentary earlier this week. Pointedly, he focused on the criticism both the media and the Democratic Party face for their language surrounding a recent distressing incident involving Donald Trump at one of his Florida golf clubs. Vance’s comments followed the arrest of 58-year-old Ryan Routh, a Democratic contributor with a previous criminal record that should have prevented him from firearm possession.
Routh, authorities confirm, concealed himself at Trump International Golf Course in West Palm Beach for roughly 12 hours, wielding an ominous AK-17. Public discourse from the political Left, Vance argues, has grown dangerously intense. He dramatically recalls the near-fatal event where Steve Scalise and various others were targeted by a far-Left individual who attacked a congressional Republican baseball practice while vocalizing political hatred.
Navigating the complex threads of this situation, Vance draws attention to words of Vice President Kamala Harris. She proclaimed that ‘Democracy is on the line’ in her electoral campaign against Trump. Strikingly similar language was used by the assailant. The same sentiment held by Harris was seen displayed on a bumper sticker on Routh’s truck.
Furthermore, the accused had shown an unusual interest in Ukraine’s ‘fight for Democracy’ and had seemingly internalised numerous extreme perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ryan Routh, as Vance discloses, has consistently supported Democratic causes but never made monetary contributions toward Republican ones.
The hypothetical scenario Vance presents is fairly concise: What if a pro-Republican donor had planned an attack on a Democratic official? The answer, he argues, needs little speculation. He also finds flaws in the way Harris’s campaign associates have publicly stated that ‘Trump has to be eliminated.’ When faced with the second ploy to harm the former President within a span of two months, media outlets seemed to have reacted less-than-seriously. An instance is when NBC News labelled the incident a ‘golf club issue.’
An assortment of misleading headlines and frivolous reporting from various outlets, including the LA Times and USA Today, are pointed out by Vance. These sources, despite the gravity of the situation, appeared to downplay the reality of yet another assassination attempt on Trump. He also criticizes CNN’s Dana Bash who recently accused him of motivating a bomb threat but who later asserted that Harris’s campaign language did not influence Routh.
Vance also calls out an inconsistent journalistic approach exemplified by PBS. The media outlet spent mere seconds discussing the second assassination attempt on Trump, swiftly moving the audience’s focus to the supposed real threats: JD Vance and President Trump. This narrative stems from their alleged linkage to bomb threats made against Springfield, which media insiders have posited originated from an overseas source, not a fanatic Trump supporter as was suggested.
Vance rebukes a narrative that, despite all evidence, places the blame on him and Trump for bomb threats directed at Springfield, Ohio. Apart from this, he brings attention to the obscured reports concerning thousands of Haitian migrants settling in Springfield which has inevitably elicited enormous challenges for the locals. Vance highlights issues arising from the migration like an increase in vehicular accidents, declining affordable housing options, eviction of residents, overrun hospitals and schools, and a steep rise in disease.
The Harris administration initially ignored these pressing issues, he critiques. Despite blocking deportations and the resulting increase of undocumented immigrants in Springfield, the problems this small town faces due to her policies remained unnoticed. Vance accuses media outlets of implementing censorship tactics to suppress these stories and blaming President Trump and himself for any incidents of violence.
Media’s fixation on threats and its neglect of real issues such as a surge in crime, HIV prevalence, overwhelmed school systems due to language barrier problems, increased insurance rates and car accidents, are all part of Vance’s critique. He argues that covering threats doesn’t aim to mitigate discourse, but instead grant attention to the makers of these threats, as it diverts from actual issues of concern.
Moreover, he criticises that the media’s coverage strategy is more of a diversion and acts as a shaming mechanic. The implication being that highlighting issues brought about by Harris’s immigration policy and the effects on Springfield could be perceived as endangering citizens. This sort of moral leveraging, he argues, is designed to suppress dissent, not to ensure safety.
Vance, now in his forties, declares his objective for the upcoming weeks to be an unwavering defence of the freedom of expression and to persuade people to resist censorship efforts. He asserts that pushing back against censorship corresponds with warding off political violence whereas embracing censorship inherently accepts violence used to enforce it.
He simplifies his argument expressing that the underlying rationale of censorship invariably leads to a grim conclusion. In his own words, ‘There is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain,’ clearly indicating the terrifying extremity of where censorship can lead.
Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly…
— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 16, 2024