Memories of the Ford Administration
On September 5, 1975, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford, but was stopped by a Secret service agent as she was pulling the trigger.
On September 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore, shot at Ford and missed his head by a few inches.
Neither of these assassination attempts were major news stories, at least to the extent you might expect. Both events were quickly forgotten, and did not impact the upcoming campaign for president. They occurred during a time of very low intensity in politics, and (perhaps more importantly) during a period of much worse political violence. These are very different times—much less physically violent and much more verbally violent. This explains why yesterday felt like a much more shocking event than the two attempts on Ford.
Looking at the 1963-81 period more broadly, one notices a high rate of assassinations or attempted assassinations: Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King (1968), Bobby Kennedy (1968), George Wallace (1972), Ford (1975, twice), Reagan (1981.) Since then, the US political scene has been relatively peaceful—not much different from Europe. That’s actually kind of odd, given our well known reputation for having a violent gun culture and overheated rhetoric.
Most of the 1963-81 period was not politically polarized, with the partial exception of 1968, when Vietnam and race riots somewhat divided the country. Polarization doesn’t seem to cause violence.
Soon after the recent assassination attempt, a commenter was already blaming me for the outrage. (I couldn’t help wondering why this commenter uses the sort of reckless rhetoric that he condemns, when he is attacking the Dems.)
Fortunately, there is no evidence that reckless words leads to violence. But people are going to believe what they want to believe, despite the lack of empirical evidence. No evidence that porn causes sexual assault? That won’t stop people from believing the theory. Ditto for violent films and crime, and 100 other hot button issues. People believe what they want to believe.
Assassination attempts shock our sensibilities. We don’t wish to believe that they are random occurrences, so we seek out any possible explanation that makes sense. Sometimes, there is no explanation.
PS. Ford won New Jersey, Illinois, and California, and yet lost the 1976 election.
PPS. Who knew this?
PPPS. Yes, the two 1975 assassination attempts did achieve headline status in the NYT. But look how little interest there was a few days after even the second attempt in 17 days. It was headlines news on September 23rd, but by the 26th a crucial revelation (that federal agents tried to help the assassin buy her firearm) was treated as a minor news story, less important than the ongoing investigation of Patty Hearst:
Tags:
14. July 2024 at 14:38
> Fortunately, there is no evidence that reckless words leads to violence. But people are going to believe what they want to believe, despite the lack of empirical evidence. No evidence that porn causes sexual assault? That won’t stop people from believing the theory. Ditto for violent films and crime, and 100 other hot button issues. People believe what they want to believe.
Sumner, what do you mean by “reckless words”? Media portrayed Trump as literally Hitler for 8 straight years and we are supposed to not believe this isn’t some type of call to action?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7qC_kXJ2B4
14. July 2024 at 14:40
we are supposed to believe this isn’t some type of call to action?*
14. July 2024 at 15:06
As for polarization it’s notable how few of the assassins of the 60s/70s/80s era were motivated by discernible, conventional partisanship. The overwhelming pattern was a bunch of dingbats, doofuses, and losers, half of them not even planning a couple of days in advance.
On that note, I must also note that you left Sam Byck’s abortive assassination attempt on Nixon off of your list. Truly there is too great a bounty of failed nonentities with poor impulse control to even keep a proper count.
14. July 2024 at 15:14
I do not blame Scott Sumner for the assassination attempt on Trump.
And I forgive Sumner for not understanding how the Singapore economy work
14. July 2024 at 15:20
Stupid person known for history of stupid posts misuses word “literally”, widely recognized indicator of being a stupid person. It all adds up.
14. July 2024 at 15:57
Will,
Take a look at this video from an MSNBC journalist as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvqfSq2BqlA
This isn’t ok.
14. July 2024 at 16:49
Scott,
Don’t forget the Congressional Softball shooting (2017) and Gabby Giffords (2011). Actually you missed quite a few more that are signficant.
Wikipedia has a list of dozens of other “assassinations” in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations
Giffords and Scalise aren’t on either list because niether died.
Over the period where you propose a hiatus, excluding a few regional and national political figures like giffords and scalise, the assassinations shift from mafia-related to rap-related, with the occasional abortion doctor or radio talk show host thrown in for good measure.
I call it a list of “assassinations” – in quotes – because the most recent on the list is a church official murdered by his housekeeeper’s husband…so…is that really an “assassination” or just “murder”? I guess I’d have to say the same about the mafia / rap killings. Jounalists and other public figures, killed for political reasons, now *that* is assassination.
Oh, they also have one specifically of American politicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians
Your don’t offer significant evidence for your argument that intense verbal attacks and misrepresentations have no relationship to assassinations and murders. You’d be hard pressed substantiate that claim in the case of assissinations of abortion doctors, where amplified rhetoric is specifically intended to be threatening. The fact that Giffords was an outspoken advocate of gun control surely made her a target, and the rhetoric on both sides regarding gun control surely amped up the stakes in some people’s minds.
The fact that heated rhetoric doesn’t *always* lead to assassinations or assassination attempts is not evidence in support of your position. You have no way of knowing at any given momenet how many people are just a hairs’ breadth away from committing an assassination, but are detered by some minor obstacle.
Just the same I don’t view cliche rhetoric like “putting [person] in the cross-hairs” or “have [someone’s] head on a pike” is incitement to murder. Rather, it’s the accusation that people have committed henious crimes that drives political violence. That would be consistent with the killings of abortion doctors and attacks on politicians.
In Trump’s case there is a story now that the would-be assassin was confronted by cops and threatened them; the cops backed down but the assassin was forced to rush the effort likely cauising it’s failure.
14. July 2024 at 16:49
The unabomber, in his manifesto, probably said it best. Here is the genius in his own words:
“Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro- collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.”
What a powerful closing statement: “deep inside, he feels like a loser”.
The TDS faction are losers. These people hate Trump, because Trump is everything they are not. He’s good looking, he’s successful, he’s smart, he’s happy, he loves his country, and he doesn’t give a damn about their refined sensibilities. In short, he epitomizes the individualist, a man who beats to his own drum, which they wholly despise.
The so called “elite” hate the farmer, the factory worker, the plumber, the small business owner because they are “stupid people” who don’t know anything about philosophy or economics, or politics, or history. They don’t “conform” they way they should.
At the turn of the century, when these elite adopted this arrogant attitude,they began to believe that they had a right (almost and obligation) to impose their will upon these “stupid people” who they often claim “live in a cult”.
These elite, mostly feminine, weak, middle class white males believe they have to “civilize the barbarian.” They used words like it’s “the white man’s burden” which over the years has become the “elite burden” to help those “losers” conform to their expectations.
Even if it means shooting them down, apparently.
14. July 2024 at 16:50
You’ve often complained about the high levels of TSA policing of airport security post-9/11. Given that an aeroplane hijacking (even if not terrorism-related) would probably now also be seen as much more shocking than 40-50 years ago, do the current TSA requirements make a bit more sense to you? As in, they’re driven by an underlying societal change in violence- or risk-appetite?
14. July 2024 at 18:32
Cochrane, No, the media has not portrayed Trump as Hitler. (But it’s perfectly accurate to say Trump is an authoritarian nationalist.) And no politician in American history has used more reckless words than Trump. He is now campaigning on the theme that the Jan. 6 insurrectionists are heroes. In his first campaign he ran on “Lock her up”. He says people who oppose him are traitors. So, if you are worried about reckless words . . .
On Jan 6 a violent mob contained people vowing to kill Pence and Pelosi, and for 3 hours Trump rebuffed his aide’s pleas to bring in the National Guard. People died. If we are worried about reckless words and reckless actions contributing to political violence, then Trump is the very last politician that anyone should support.
Grant, Yup, and I predict this guy will fall into that nut job category. I heard he was a right wing Republican who donated to Democrats. What?
Kangaroo, I was talking about attempted assassinations of major public figures—very rare since 1981. The fact that you mention someone as obscure as Gifford speaks volumes.
Rajat, I think Tyler Cowen makes that argument. The counterargument is a sort of “hedonic treadmill” problem for safety. The safer you make things, the more people freak out over minor things. You can never win, because people have a fixed amount of worry in their brains. Flying is now super safe, and you have people complaining about minor Boeing safety issues.
14. July 2024 at 19:36
1. You called him Hitler for years, as if he caused 50M global deaths (Estimate WW2). Eres tonto!
2. You tried to keep him off the ballots in swing states, and the Supreme Court destroyed you 9-0.
3. You tried to bankrupt him. Failed.
4. You tried to put him in prison: Failed.
5. You tried to assasinate him: Failed.
And don’t give me this nonsense about words not playing a role. You just told us a few months ago that Trump was guilty of inciting violence via his words on Jan 6th.
Logically, one rule has to apply for everyone. If you’re going to claim that his words “march peacefully” and “protest peacefully” are the equivalent to inciting violence, then you cannot turn around and tell us that calling him Adolf Hitler is harmless.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
14. July 2024 at 19:55
I’m very much surprised there isn’t more political violence in America considering the general amount of shootings.
Part of me wonders if we’ll find out that, like so many school shootings, there was actually no political intent here – just a disaffected youth with easy access to powerful weapons and a desire to make a name for themselves.
14. July 2024 at 20:00
Cochrane,
You said: “Media portrayed Trump as literally Hitler for 8 straight years and we are supposed to not believe this isn’t some type of call to action?”
The person who attempted to assassinate Trump was a Republican: it is hard to argue that would be the type of person to respond to a call to action against Trump, but that is not the actual point. Imagine it had been a Democrat (or at least somebody in those lines). I don’t find it unreasonable that in the millions of people who identify as such some might be willing to commit political violence without any incitement! January 6th is different, precisely given the number of people that at once intended to commit political violence (and the context of it, with Trump giving a speech earlier to those same very people).
PS: He is no Hitler, but as Sumner said, he is an authoritarian nationalist and that should be correctly pointed out by the media.
14. July 2024 at 20:32
Cochrane,
Oh, one more thing: I don’t know exactly what you mean by call to action. Are you asserting that certain political pundits or politicians asked and wanted violence against Trump or criticism of Trump on his authoritarian personality? Words are always up for interpretation by different people, but Trump has a certain context that just exemplifies beyond that.
There should be a comparison of Trump’s general behavior, not just on January 6th, but in particular, regarding the previous election and his handling of it. There’ll always be people (regardless of political identity) that engage or support political violence (and that should be condemned), but ask yourself: which side has a pattern in doing so?
14. July 2024 at 21:06
Your comment about how we’ve exchanged physical violence for verbal violence over the past five decades makes me feel a little better–the statistics back up that claim solidly. Despite your assertion that Trump is a symptom of a banana republic, I need to believe that he’s one of the few people capable of organizing the worst elements of our society—aka “the very fine people.”
Even without this incident, he was marching down a red carpet to victory in November. A red carpet laid down by Biden and the disorganization that seems endemic to the American Left.
15. July 2024 at 00:40
OT, but nation’s all over SE Asia are facing versions of what Europe and US are facing:
—
“Indonesia Announces Hefty Tariffs on Chinese-made Goods
The country’s small businesses could “collapse” under a flood of low-cost Chinese goods, the country’s trade minister said.
On Friday, a senior Indonesian official announced that the country would impose an import tariff of up to 200 percent on a range of Chinese goods, in order to protect the country’s micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs).”–The Diplomat
—30—
No doubt orthodox economists will decry the actions as protectionism.
Some might say the anti-China goods actions as necessary for social stability and economic and military survival.
Interesting topic.
15. July 2024 at 05:16
What might the newly-empowered President Trump be able to do to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve?
15. July 2024 at 09:34
Everyone, For 10 years we’ve had a drumbeat of right-wingers complaining that the left were “snowflakes” because they were offended by Trump’s wildly inflammatory rhetoric. And now we’re all supposed to be “civil”? Okaaaay. . . .
Travis, You said:
“What might the newly-empowered President Trump be able to do to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve?”
Given that the courts have now proclaimed that the president is above the law, at least for any even slightly official act, then I’d say “Just about anything he wants”.
15. July 2024 at 11:42
If TSA prevents wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems well worth the price to me. Also, shouldn’t policies in a banana republic be viewed with regards to their outcomes dependent on their being implemented in a banana republic, as opposed to how they would operate in a fully functioning liberal country (liberal in the older, Enlightenment sense of the word)?
15. July 2024 at 13:58
Lizard, “If TSA prevents wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan”
Sure, but it doesn’t.
Yes to your second question.
16. July 2024 at 11:15
“Not especially polarizing except for Vietnam and the race riots” is like saying WW2 wasn’t especially violent except for all the shooting and explosions. It was an era of unprecedented mass protest, rioting (and no it was not just around 1968; the race riots were a regular occurrence throughout the decade), and political violence. All due respect, I think your personal experience of that era is colored by the fact that you were a child at the time. By any objective measure it was incredibly polarized. We’ve never since reached the degree of political violence and protest (even summer 2020 pales in comparison to the 60s).
16. July 2024 at 11:33
Mark, You are confusing protest and polarization. Today, I meet people who won’t even date someone of the other party. There are people getting divorced over their view of Trump. I meet people that want to move to another state because they don’t like the politics in their own state. Those things were much more rare in the 1960s and 1970s. People didn’t speak of “red states” and “blue states”.
The US was not at all polarized when Kennedy was shot in 1963, or when two attempts were made on Ford in 1975, or when Reagan was shot in 1981. When Wallace was shot in 1972, Nixon won 49 states—does that seem polarized? When Malcolm X was killed in early 1965, LBJ had just won a massive victory, and the country was unified around him.