ON THE BRINK

Who wouldn’t want to stop Hitler?

While the assassination attempts on Trump’s life are the responsibility of the individuals who carried them out, the broader political climate — fueled by extreme and often irresponsible rhetoric — has undoubtedly played a role in heightening tensions. 

Democratic Party leaders have consistently framed Trump as an existential threat to democracy, a nazi sympathizer, and even claimed he’s “more dangerous” than Hitler and Mussolini. Such rhetoric not only distorts political debate but also potentially incites violence by demonizing a political figure to the point where opponents see violence as justified. 

A significant source of this heated rhetoric stems from repeated false accusations, such as the claim that Trump called white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville “very fine people.” Despite numerous fact-checks debunking this interpretation, the narrative persists, often repeated by high-profile figures within the Democratic Party and the media. 

This kind of exaggeration creates a sense of moral panic, suggesting that Trump represents a unique and unprecedented danger to the nation, which in turn can push individuals to believe that extreme measures — including violence — are justified to prevent his return to power.

While it is legitimate to criticize Trump’s policies and actions, his framing as an unparalleled threat to democracy undermines civil discourse and the democratic process. Accusations of dictatorship and comparisons to figures like Hitler are not only historically inaccurate, but they trivialize the actual horrors of fascism and authoritarian regimes.

The fact that two assassination attempts have been made against Donald Trump in recent months underscores the need for greater responsibility in political messaging. Demonizing political opponents to the point where they are seen as beyond the bounds of democratic debate makes violence appear to be the only option for some.

Rather than resorting to extreme characterizations of Trump, it would serve the Democratic Party and the country better to engage in substantive critiques of his policies and behavior. 

Focusing on real issues rather than hyperbolic accusations would improve the quality of political discourse and help lower the political temperature. Political leaders, regardless of party, must recognize their responsibility to maintain an environment where differences are resolved through dialogue, not violence.

CURATED READS

What today’s leaders are reading

Violence and instability have become a feature, not a bug, of US political life David Smith, The Guardian

Media is asking the wrong questions Ashley Rindsberg, UnHerd

NVDA holds the key to the market. Is it worth this much? Jeff Sommer, NYT

New OpenAI model prompts warnings from AI scientists Marie Boran, Newsweek

Feds fail to recover hundreds of billions in COVID fraud Casey Harper, Center Square

CEO INTERVIEW

Welcham Keen Managing Partner Aaron Boyd

Aaron has over 25 years of experience in international strategy for the technology sector, primarily in telecommunications and cybersecurity. Before founding Welchman Keen, Aaron was President of international at Silent Circle, a leading Geneva-based company that provides encrypted communications hardware and software.

As Chief Strategy Officer of ABI Research, Aaron led the company into the cybersecurity space and built a collaborative relationship with the ITU. This resulted in developing the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) and the ITU Regional Cyber Drill program, which provided training to over 120 governments.

Aaron was a fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), where he co-directed courses on National Cybersecurity Policy and Cyber Defence for over 30 governments. For his contribution to cybersecurity, Aaron was awarded the ITU Silver Medal.