The real world consequences of a scurrilous claim by the leader of the Republican Party
The proper response is full-on laughter and derision to an elderly, addled, angry bully asserting to an audience of 67 million viewers that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are killing and eating their white neighbors’ cats and dogs. Since last Tuesday’s debate social media has been awash with memes mocking the bully’s statement; his declared source, “They’re saying it on TV”; and his continued claims, against many official denials, that pets are being killed and eaten by immigrants. Trump doubled-down even after the woman in Springfield who wrote the Facebook post admitted it had no basis in fact.To an increasing number of American voters Trump reminds them of their elderly, crazy uncle raving on at a family gathering.
Worse, on the Friday following the debate, Trump’s weird running mate, JD Vance, expanded on the elderly uncle’s xenophobic rhetoric:
Without citing evidence, Vance wrote on X: “In Springfield, Ohio, there has been a massive rise in communicable diseases, rent prices, car insurance rates, and crime. This is what happens when you drop 20,000 people into a small community.”
Vance went on to charge that the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, “aims to do this to every town in our country.”
A spokesman for Vance told the Washington Post that he would provide evidence for the senator’s claims but did not say when.
Meanwhile, as ridicule is heaped on Trump’s nationally televised statement, there are real life consequences:
The rhetoric has escalated, and numerous buildings in Springfield – including its City Hall and an elementary school – were evacuated Thursday due to a bomb threat that included “hateful language” about the city’s immigrant population.
On Friday, two elementary schools were evacuated based on information received by the Springfield Police Division, the Columbus Dispatch reported. The Springfield City School District did not immediately return a voice message seeking comment.
The best and most thorough discussion of the fallout from the Republican statement is Robert Hubbell’s Substack post from September 13, “Why Springfield, Ohio matters.” (Click the underlined title and, if you’re not already a subscriber, you will see a page where you can either enter your email address to receive his near-daily email missives or click “No thanks” to take you directly to the post.)
Historian Heather Cox Richardson’s Substack post on September 13 (a great read), provides more detail on the build-up of the lie. It started with JD Vance’s increasing focus on Springfield back in July. His words spurred white supremacist groups to gather in Springfield. The whole ugly lie expanded following the hearsay Facebook post in late August (since withdrawn, see above). The whole build-up led to Trump’s ludicrous debate assertion that “They’re eating the pets.”
Senator Vance (R-OH) evidently couldn’t care less about the effects of his words on the well-being of the people of Springfield, Ohio, including his own constituents. Heather Cox Richardson points out that, at least for Vance, this whole episode is fundamentally about political power, the little people hurt in the process be damned:
The widespread ridicule of Trump’s statement has obscured that this attack on Ohio’s immigrants is part of an attempt to regain control of the Senate. Convincing Ohio voters that the immigrants in their midst are subhuman could help Republicans defeat popular Democratic incumbent senator Sherrod Brown, who has held his seat since 2007. Brown and Montana’s Jon Tester, both Democrats in states that supported Trump in 2020, are key to controlling the Senate.
Two Republican super PACs, one of which is linked to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have booked more than $82 million of ad space in Ohio between Labor Day and the election and are focusing on immigration.
The outcome of these two U.S. Senate races might determine the course of the federal government for the next four years. If Republicans in the November election can capture a U.S. Senate majority—even by one vote—they will use that toe-hold to block nominations to federal judgeships, block any efforts to provide an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, stymie voting legislation, and, finally, blame the administration for “not getting anything done.” Recognize further that this would prolong the “tyranny by the minority” that is inherent in the composition of the U.S. Senate, where, in 2020, Republicans held half the seats while representing only 43.5% of the population of the nation. The stakes are high for continuation of their minority rule—and JD Vance and Trump don’t care who they hurt in pursuing it.
One hopes that the unfounded rumor, “They’re eating the pets”, to which Trump exposed the nation last Tuesday will result in continued ridicule by highlighting the dangerous, racist, dehumanizing, xenophobic, white supremacist rhetoric on which the Republican Party has pegged its brand.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Heather Cox Richardson, in her closing paragraphs, drew a sickening political parallel to the “They’re eating the pets” rumor, a political parallel that underscores the real-world consequences of spreading lies and rumors in pursuit of power:
In 1890, Republicans faced a similar problem. They had lost the popular vote in 1888, although they installed Republican president Benjamin Harrison in office through the Electoral College, and knew the Democrats would soon far outnumber their own voters. So they set out to guarantee that they could never lose the Senate, which should enable them to kill popular Democratic legislation.
But they misjudged the electorate, and in the 1890 midterm election, voters gave control of the House to the Democrats by a margin of two to one, and control of the Senate came down to a single seat, that of a senator from South Dakota. In those days, state legislatures chose their state’s senators, and shortly after it became clear that control of the Senate was going to depend on that South Dakota seat, U.S. Army troops went to South Dakota to rally voters by putting down an “Indian uprising” in which no people had died and no property had been damaged.
Fueled on false stories of “savages” who were attacking white settlers, the inexperienced soldiers were the ones who pulled the triggers to kill more than 250 Lakotas on December 29, but the Wounded Knee Massacre started in Washington, D.C.
Of course, there is a stark difference. In the late nineteenth century statements and rumors spread at a snail’s pace via telegraph, newspapers, and word of mouth over months. Fact-checking was equally slow. Today, in contrast, Trump makes his incendiary claim to 67 million people, social media explodes, and fact-checking (via the debate moderator) is nearly immediate.