Staff Reports
Steve Benen, a purveyor of leftist commentary over at MSNBC, has recently decided to wade into the murky waters of justifying attempted presidential assassination. The situation revolves around Ryan Wesley Routh, who reportedly tried to take a shot at former President Donald Trump. Instead of condemning such actions unequivocally, Benen, in a predictable display of liberal bias, claims Routh was somehow justified in his misguided ambitions, arguing that Trump presents a “threat to democracy.” This line of reasoning could raise eyebrows—if it weren’t part of the usual playbook from the left.
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife. Benen’s attempt to downplay Routh’s actions paints a troubling picture of moral decay among those who claim to uphold virtue in politics. It’s not every day one sees the words “justified” and “would-be assassin” in the same conversation, yet here we are. This is a classic case of the left’s selective outrage, where they rush to defend anyone who targets a conservative, while simultaneously ignoring the chaos that their own rhetoric often incites.
IT’S A TERRIBLE NETWORK STAFFED BY TERRIBLE PEOPLE: MSNBC Columnist Says Routh Was Justified in Wanting to Take a Shot at Trump. https://t.co/TL8AyTAaIu
— God Bless🙏USA🇺🇸 (@therayban) September 17, 2024
Trump believes it's excessive to say he's a threat to democracy, but
– he really has endorsed an authoritarian-style vision
– it's not just Dems who made the accusation against him
– he's repeatedly accused his perceived foes of being threats to democracy https://t.co/LASsDH5RYg— Steve Benen (@stevebenen) September 16, 2024
Benen’s warped logic stems from the belief that Trump’s blunt and robust criticisms somehow translate into violent encouragement, despite the absence of any real causal link. The reality is that Routh’s political affiliations were as erratic as his actions; he dabbled in supporting both Republican and Democratic candidates. To label him as some sort of dedicated Democrat, as Benen implies, is a laughable stretch. This paints a more complex picture of Routh—one that defies simple partisan narratives and excuses.
Benen plays into a familiar theme where the left tries to pin violence on perceived “violent rhetoric” from the right. This is a tactic that has flopped in the past, especially when Democrats pointed fingers after events like the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011. At that time, they attempted to link Sarah Palin’s district map with the actions of Jared Loughner, ignoring the fact that Loughner’s motivations were unrelated to any political rhetoric. It’s almost as if this is a strategy to distract from their own shortcomings.
Benen might try to argue that Routh is another product of a culture fueled by right-wing sentiment, but he’s made a critical error by neglecting to acknowledge that many violent individuals share common traits independent of politics. From John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald, what ties these figures together isn’t ideology but rather a desperate craving for notoriety. Routh’s actions may be bizarre, but they speak more to his individual dysfunction than to any particular political climate.
In truth, Ryan Routh is less a symbol of a political movement and more a tragic figure who embarked on a misguided path. Whether or not he will achieve infamy remains uncertain, but what is abundantly clear is that any attempt to justify such heinous behavior under the guise of political critique is not only reckless but downright dangerous. Blaming Trump or rhetoric from the right for Routh’s choices merely serves to highlight the lengths to which the left will go to divert attention from their own accountability in fostering a respectful political discourse.
