5 Polarizing Moments from the 2024 Republican National Convention

In examining polarizing moments from the RNC, our goal is not to call out specific leaders or parties (and, yes, we’ll be doing this for the Democratic National Convention, too): Our goal is to draw attention to conflict-amplifying language and to try to separate that from the issues we disagree on. 

As a society, we often conflate what we disagree about with how we disagree. We aim to help more people see that you can work toward whatever political goal you want while making choices that reduce toxicity. We can be harshly critical of our political adversaries’ ideas while we, as the NGA puts it, disagree better. And we’d argue that taking less polarizing approaches actually helps one achieve one’s goals.

We’ve barely begun to talk about such things as a society. It’s our hope that the more we, and others, talk about these things, the more we’ll put these ideas top-of-mind in the minds of leaders and pundits and other influential people. 

Moment #1: “They will come for you”

“If they can come for me, if they can come for Donald Trump, be careful, they will come for you… If we don’t control all three branches of our government… their government will put some of us like me and Steve Bannon in prison, and control the rest of us… You may be thinking this couldn’t happen to you. Make no mistake: they’re already coming for you.”
  — Peter Navarro, talking about his recent release from prison

Conflict makes us see the “other side” in increasingly pessimistic and scary terms. We can be prone to only seeing the worst-case interpretations of what “they” have done — or will do. This can make us more paranoid. 

We can try to understand why our political opponents think we’ve done bad things and find us threatening while also resisting the urge to see big, concerted plots. We should be willing to question our pessimism and think about the times our worst-case predictions about our political opponents haven’t come true. No one knows what’s in anyone else’s heart — so we should all avoid speaking as though we have that type of clairvoyance. 

Republicans who express fear of Democrats should be curious about the fears Democrats have of Trump so they can better understand Democrats’ motivations (for example, Trump’s threats to take legal action against his political opponents can prompt genuine and understandable concerns). We can disagree about the nature of the threats faced while still trying to understand why our opponents think what they do.

Moment #2: Antifa = Democrats? 

“The day after the midterm elections in 2018, antifa came to my house, the Democratic Party’s militia…”
— Tucker Carlson

Conflict can lead many people to see the “other side” as all the same: in psychology, this is referred to as the out-group homogeneity effect. Tucker speaking as if the Democratic Party is aligned with the militant, aggressive behaviors of some of those who identify as “antifa” is one example of this. 

We can see the same tendency play out on the left when people equate extreme and militant far-right protesters with Republicans in general. Republicans who are genuinely interested in reducing toxicity should examine how they feel when anti-Trump people take that approach. 

Moment #3: “Those who despise our republic” 

“[Trump] is not a threat to democracy, he’s a threat to those who despise our republic, many of whom are bought and sold, bribed and coerced, people who have never signed the front of a check, and who have been dependent on the government their entire adult lives.”
  — Eric Trump

Americans clearly disagree about many contentious issues — including the issue of Trump himself. But can we see things differently without insulting our adversaries — without reaching for the worst possible interpretations of “them”? 

Far too many of us reach for these easy insults and pessimistic framings. That is, after all, what conflict brings out in us. If Eric Trump were interested in reducing political contempt, he’d be willing to examine how his language ramps up our divides. In the past, Eric has expressed much contempt toward liberals, seemingly because he feels many liberals have shown contempt for his family. Eric should be willing to examine how contempt begets more contempt — and how it can even help create the very pushback that upsets him. 

(Regarding pessimistic views that liberals lack patriotism, and views that conservatives have a toxic form of patriotism, you might like this piece of ours.)

Moment #4: “Real Americans”

“We’re going to bring America back together one real American at a time, brother…”
  — Hulk Hogan, in a speech that mentioned “real Americans” six times

Talking about “real Americans” implies that it’s possible to separate America into “real” and “not real” citizens. It’s insulting to imply that one might be an American citizen but not be a “real American” because one isn’t conservative or because one dislikes Trump. 

And it’s ironic for Hulk Hogan to talk about working to “bring America back together” while using divisive “real Americans” language.

Hogan also said, “They took a shot at my hero and they tried to kill the next President of the United States.” He used the word “they,” implying it was the amorphous “other side” — but the assassination attempt was the act of one person (as far as we know). Conflict can make us see the “other side” as a uniform group (just as Carlson equated antifa with the Democratic Party). This can lead us to distorted and toxic framings (as we can see with conspiracy theories that arose on both the anti-Trump and pro-Trump side after the assassination attempt). Trump supporters should try to imagine how they’d feel if someone had attempted to kill Biden and Democrats used similar “they” language about that event. 

Moment #5: “The invasion… killing hundreds of thousands”

“We have to stop the invasion into our country that’s killing hundreds of thousands of people a year… It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land.”
— Donald Trump

People have understandable concerns about illegal border crossings and illegal immigrants — but one can have those concerns while also seeing that exaggerated rhetoric can amplify fear and anger and further divide us. We’re not sure what Trump was referring to by “hundreds of thousands of people a year” being killed — but even if it was a misspeaking, it’s an example of how loose he can be with claims about the harm being done to America on this and other issues. 

We’d propose that not only does such exaggerated rhetoric amplify our divides — it can hurt Republicans’ own goals by making their concerns seem unreasonable. That’s why we say that speaking in more nuanced and persuasive ways isn’t just something we do to help lower divides — it’s something we should do to further our own political causes. 

Can we do better? 

These were just a few polarizing moments from the RNC; we don’t mean to say that was all of them.

This piece may strike some people as naive. Some may be thinking, “That person you mentioned doesn’t want to reduce toxicity.” But we’d call it optimism. We think that some people who speak in polarizing ways do, deep down, want to reduce toxicity, but just don’t know how. Of course, some people don’t want that — but we still see it as valuable to talk about their language choices, if only to spark more public discussion.

And of course you may disagree with one or more points we’ve made — but hopefully you agree with the big-picture ideas. We hope our political leaders, those genuinely interested in reducing toxicity, will embrace these ideas — and work toward their political goals while trying to bring down the temperature.

Want to stay in the loop about efforts to reduce toxic polarization? Sign up for our newsletter.