How Decades of Demonizing ofConservatives Fueled Deadly Violence

We are living in a moment of political violence that is not out of nowhere. The assassination attempt on Donald Trump in 2024 and the killing of Charlie Kirk in 2025 are not isolated events—they are downstream consequences of years of demonizing rhetoric. Much of that has come from the left, though conservatives have their share too. But what is shocking to many who trafficked in utterances like “Nazis,” “fascists,” “dictators,” “authoritarian” for Republicans, is seeing those words turned from metaphor into something more real, something deadly.

1. The Attempt on Donald Trump (2024) as Prelude

• In July 2024, Donald Trump was shot at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in what was deemed an attempted assassination. ^Wikipedia
• The shooter fired from a nearby rooftop, and while Trump survived, the death of an attendee and injuries to others underscored the risk borne by political polarization. ^Wikipedia
• In the aftermath, there was broad reaction—not just condemnation of violence, but also finger-pointing: Republicans blamed Biden and Democratic leaders’ rhetoric, suggesting that harsh, demeaning language toward Trump (“he’s evil,” “threat to democracy,” etc.) laid the foundation for such violence. ^Wikipedia

This incident should have served as warning: words matter. Demonization of political opponents as existential threats doesn’t stay in the realm of speech forever.

2. The Killing of Charlie Kirk (2025) and Immediate Rhetoric

• Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot at Utah Valley University during a public event. Authorities have described this as a political assassination. ^{AP News+2AP News+2}
• In the immediate wake, many conservative leaders (including President Trump) blamed the “radical left,” saying rhetoric from the left had created an environment where this violence was possible. ^{Politico+4The Guardian+4The Guardian+4}
• Media outlets have reported this framing: CNN, MSNBC, and other networks have run commentary that implies that left-wing rhetoric is to blame. For example, reporting has noted that progressive or liberal voices have compared Republicans to “Nazis” or “fascists” in recent years, and these stories now ask whether that kind of language contributed to an environment of political violence. (Some reports also push back, saying that we don’t yet have confirmed evidence tying the shooter ideologically to “the left” beyond expressions of opposition to Kirk’s views.) ^{The Guardian+3Vox+3AP News+3}

3. The Rhetoric From the Left Over Decades

To understand how the recent events could happen, we need to go back and catalog some of the more extreme or demonizing rhetoric from past decades—especially from the left—toward conservatives or Republicans. Here are some illustrative examples:

• During the Reagan Administration, prominent Democrats, intellectuals, media figures frequently compared Reagan’s policies and approach to authoritarianism, fascism, or even Hitler. For instance, some critics accused Reagan of wanting to replace civil liberties with fascist precepts. ^{Washington Examiner}
• Esquire and other magazines raised alarms during Reagan’s presidency, suggesting that his followers and policies were reminiscent of fascist movements, or that his rhetoric of “evil” was itself painting enemies so darkly as to justify extreme responses. ^{Washington Examiner}
• More broadly, this is part of a longer tradition of using labels like “Nazi,” “fascist,” “dictator” as political insults rather than precise historical or ideological terms. This has been common enough that it’s often assumed to be harmless—but the frequency and intensity have cumulative effects. ^{The Guardian+2Wikipedia+2}

4. How the Rhetoric Doesn’t Stay in Speech Alone

Words build worlds. When political opponents are constantly painted as existential threats—Nazis, fascists, totalitarians—it lowers the barrier to seeing them as legitimate targets. It normalizes hostility.

• After Trump’s 2024 shooting, many on the right pointed to Biden or Democratic leaders’ harsh phrases (“threat to democracy,” “authoritarian,” “menace”) as having laid groundwork. The idea: rhetoric shapes perception, and perception shapes action. ^Wikipedia+1
• After Kirk’s killing, there were similar patterns: immediately, before motive was confirmed, many blamed left-wing rhetoric. Then there were reports of leftist voices celebrating, or making comments like “karma,” though those individuals (e.g. a Secret Service employee) were put on leave once identified. ^{New York Post | 2Wikipedia+2}

So the pattern is this: demonizing speech → increased polarization → violent act → reaction blaming speech. It becomes a vicious circle.

5. The Hypocrisy and the Surprise

What is striking is the surprise from many on the left when violence happens. They accuse conservatives of incitement, then express shock when a real act of political violence happens and is tied to extreme ideology.

• Conservative commentators and leaders are now saying: “You called us fascists, dictators, mass-murderers—how can you be shocked if someone believes it?”
• Meanwhile, some media outlets are inserting caveats (“we don’t know motive yet”) but still often imply a causal relationship between left-wing rhetoric and the act—while downplaying or ignoring extreme rhetoric from the right.

6. What Needs to Change

• We need to reclaim precision in language. If you call someone a fascist or Nazi, be specific—why? On what actions or ideology? Without that, the terms become free-floating labels that justify moral distance and, worse, dehumanization.
• Institutions (media, universities, political parties) must resist amplifying extreme analogies when they are not warranted. Hyperbole may stir clicks, but it damages public discourse.
• We must hold all sides accountable. It’s not enough to point fingers at “the other side”—if conservatives have used violent rhetorical framing, they deserve criticism too. The goal should be lowering intensity of demonization, not choosing which team shouts “dictator” louder.
• Finally, society must treat political violence as a collective responsibility. When we say “words don’t matter,” the body count says otherwise.

7. Conclusion: The Consequence of Unchecked Rhetoric

The attempt on Donald Trump and the killing of Charlie Kirk are the endnotes of long chapters filled with demeaning, absolutist rhetoric. When one side has spent years insisting the other is existentially evil, and when media, culture, and politics reward inflammatory language, they set the stage for something far uglier than insults.

It’s time to own what has been said, who said it, and what it has enabled. If left unchecked, this cycle of demonization → polarization → violence will not stop with Trump and Kirk. Every victim will be someone else, on either side, and the tragedy will be that we all saw it coming.

---

Andrew Spann is a contributor for Direct Line News and can be contacted at Andrew.Spann@mcgopclub.com  

About The Author