How do we move from 'civil war' to civil discourse?

Jul. 25—Nine days after a gunman attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, causing both sides of the political aisle to call for unity, an area state senator made national news for warning of "civil war" if Trump were to lose the election.

This news outlet spoke with politicians and experts to assess our current political rhetoric and how to tone it down — allowing for discussion of real differences without allusions to violence.

Former Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican who held office from 1999 to 2007, told this news outlet that the recent comment from Ohio Sen. George Lang, R-West Chester, was indicative of the "disturbing way" political rhetoric has degraded over recent years.

"The intensity of the disagreement and the intensity of the conflict, the demonizing of the other side — and the implication that because you disagree with them, they're evil — is something that I think has gotten worse in the last 10 to 15 years, probably since I was in office," Taft said. "There was always disagreement then, and there will always be disagreement, but I don't think we were as divided and as separate as we've become."

Lang's comments, made while warming up the crowd during U.S. Sen. JD Vance's Middletown rally on Monday after being named Trump's running mate, have drawn national ire. The Butler County Republican suggested that we're in a "fight for our kids and our grandkids, a fight that we can never imagine," and said the GOP ticket of Trump and Vance would be "the last chance to save our country politically."

"I'm afraid if we lose this one it's going to take a civil war to save the country," Lang continued, "and it will be saved. It's the greatest experiment in the history of mankind. And if we come down to a civil war, I'm glad we got people like ... the Bikers for Trump in our side."

Lang's statements drew immediate backlash, and eventually the attention of the White House, with President Joe Biden posting to social media: "Folks, calls to violence threaten our democracy's foundation."

Lang walked back the comments in a post on X shortly after the rally finished, saying he got swept up in excitement and regretted the "divisive remarks." He called on everyone to be "mindful of what is said at political events," especially in light of the assassination attempt earlier this month.

Politicians react

In a press conference Tuesday, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said apologizing for the comments was the right thing to do. "That's not the type of language we need," the Republican governor said.

But for others, including state Rep. Willis Blackshear, Jr., D-Dayton, Lang's apology wasn't sufficient. In a statement, Blackshear called on Lang to resign from his Ohio Senate post "for the good of our community."

When contacted by this news outlet about Blackshear's suggestion, Lang declined to comment.

Ohio Board of Education member Charlotte McGuire, a Republican vying against Blackshear this November to represent Dayton and the surrounding area in the state Senate, also expressed disappointment in Lang's rhetoric.

"I condemn violent rhetoric in the strongest possible terms on all sides," said McGuire in a statement. "Senator Lang quickly apologized for his remarks as that type of language has no place in our political discourse. I am a woman of deep faith and have always believed that we can accomplish more when we work as a team to find solutions to our problems here in Ohio."

Other Democrats have piled on, including Cleveland Canova, a candidate for Ohio's 56th House District in Warren County, who told this news outlet that "there has to be a political cost to saying that kind of thing."

Canova called into question his November opponent Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, who can be seen in the background taking a photo and then applauding as Lang finished his comments. Mathews, when contacted by this news organization, said he appreciated that Lang walked back his rhetoric and said it's important to create an atmosphere for political discourse without calling for violence.

How we got here

Despite being plainly "off the deep end," Rob Baker, professor of political science at Wittenberg University in Springfield, said Lang's rhetoric was a continuation of how we've long framed politics.

"For a lot of folks, it's a battle. It's a fight for ideas, we want our side to win," Baker told this news outlet. "But, we've gotten to the point now where we're in such a polarized situation that we have a very difficult time even listening to those on the other side. We simply dismiss them as enemies."

According to Baker, research suggests the growing political division among Americans is predominantly being stoked by both sides' "national messaging" — meaning national politicians, sources and national media outlets — which could explain the stark diversion of Lang's comments from the even-keeled nature he's displayed throughout his six years in the Ohio General Assembly.

Taft noted that government entities and the messaging that emanates from them naturally get more and more partisan the higher up you get.

He painted a political structure where local governments, such as school boards or city councils, aren't "intensely political" and tend to work together despite differences of opinion; while state politics are inherently partisan, where political candidates can often get elected more due to the party next to their name rather than their unique views; and then a federal structure that largely resembles the state but ups the ante because there's "perceived to be more at stake."

Taft said some of the partisan divide at state and federal levels can be traced back in part to legislative districts that are so skewed that the primary becomes the only competitive race, which gives candidates little incentive to appeal to voters in the middle.

"I think to some extent it's tied to the science of redistricting, (which) has gotten more sophisticated so the majority of legislative districts are either quite red or quite blue," Taft said. "There's an incentive there for legislators to seek to appeal to their base rather than working across the aisle with other legislators."

Taft also noted that relatively new phenomena like social media attention — and the ability to fund raise off that attention — have led to politicians taking contrary and increasingly extreme positions.

"As opposed to a strong desire to solve problems, there seems to be more of a desire on the part of some legislators to focus on their performance and how they're perceived by social media," Taft said.

Debate, not hate

Both Taft and Baker argued that, whatever the cause, it's time for politicians and voters alike to take responsibility in toning down the rhetoric.

"It's something that everybody in elected office and voters as well need to try to address in terms of just understanding how you disagree with someone, without being disagreeable, without hating them," said Taft.

Baker argued that, though tempting, we shouldn't shy away from engaging in political discussions with those we disagree with, but instead intentionally engage in political conversations with the goal of gaining respect for the other person.

"I think, number one, you will begin to find some common ground. But at a minimum, you're going to have a better understanding of the other point of view," Baker said.

Baker also argued that folks should be conscientious of what media they're consuming. Baker said it's important to consume media that doesn't just confirm your personal biases. He said truthful and trustful coverage, particularly of the other side, on a regular basis is an important part of a well-rounded media diet.

------

For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.

Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.

Loading...