Both campaigns must commit to avoiding violent rhetoric

On a lovely spring day in 2009, I found myself at a reception on the roof garden of the venerable Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington with a view of the White House spread out before us.

A German journalist, one of my clients at the Foreign Press Center, came over to gaze at the building where President Barack Obama was still finding his feet in the wake of the economic crisis that had struck the nation.

I was a bit surprised that the journalist became quite emotional in expressing the idea that as a European he felt that President Obama was, in a way, Europe’s president, too, because of what he represented — a younger generation, yes, but the symbolism inherent in an African-American man being elected president of the United States.

If America, with its history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and persistent fights over voting rights, affirmative action, economic opportunity, policing and discrimination could elect Barack Obama, then what other positive changes could be achieved? Could we really set aside racial/ethic hatreds and embrace each other as fellow citizens?

But then, his hopeful expression turned much darker. He expressed the fear that Obama, specifically because he was African American, would not survive his presidency. That he would befall the same fate as John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. He despaired that the current moment of hope could not banish America’s propensity for violence.

Soon after, members of my family in Sweden would express similar fears. Sadly, this is how many in the world see our country, and the many assassination plots against Obama seemed to confirm that these views were not misplaced.

Now, we have a woman of color, with a Jewish husband, running for the presidency and bumping up against several different glass ceilings even as the political rhetoric has become coarser and more violent.

We Americans tell ourselves that we are better than this, but then the puzzling assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump happened. Did the shooter seek immortality via a notorious entry in a history book? We’ll probably never know.

It reminded us that the stew of weapons, grievance, mental illness and a political system that craves that our political leaders interact with the people presents ever-present dangers.

President Biden, in the wake of the assassination attempt on former President Trump, had to apologize for some language he used at a fundraiser when he said there needed to be a bull's-eye on Trump. He claimed he meant a focus on Trump, his rhetoric and policies, but the language was unfortunate and careless.

Julie Chavez Rodriguez and Jen O’Malley Dillon, who head the Harris campaign, and Bill Stepien, who heads the Trump campaign should sit down together and try to put some guardrails around the rhetoric.

I am not naïve. They can’t control independent voices and certainly not the flood of misinformation on social media. The internet is a village, but a village with sewers that are wide and deep. Both sides see this election as existential, and that pushes things in a more dangerous direction. And, of course, discipline is not Donald Trump’s middle name, especially when egged on by a fired up crowd. Still, both campaigns need to try.

Political differences are one thing, but when you add misogyny and racism, the possibility for political violence can only escalate. Let us each do our part, condemning violent rhetoric, to ensure that this election ends in a moment of hope for the future of our country and not in a moment of tragedy.

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86. His new book “American Dreams: The Story of the Cyprus Fulbright Commission” is available from Amazon.com.