In September, Ryan Routh was arrested for allegedly attempting to assassinate President-elect Donald Trump. In the aftermath of his arrest, he sent a letter to Politico, attempting to clarify his political identity and distance himself from the Democratic Party.
The Politico article that followed, however, was met with strong criticism for its portrayal of Routh’s motivations. The critic of the article dismissed it as “fake news,” arguing that it misrepresented the reality of Routh’s political leanings and failed to address the true nature of his actions.
The article, which centered around the question of Routh’s motivations, started by discussing the blame placed on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris by Trump and his allies, who suggested their rhetoric had led to Routh’s actions.
However, the critic contends that this opening section created an impression of uncertainty regarding Routh’s motives. According to the author, this was misleading because Routh’s own letter provided a direct and unambiguous account of why he acted the way he did, pointing clearly to his anti-Trump sentiments.
Routh’s letter, which Politico quoted extensively, left little room for interpretation. He referred to Trump as a “dictator” and voiced a desire to limit presidential power, citing concerns over Trump’s leadership. Routh even compared himself to Thomas Matthew Crooks, who had previously attempted to harm Trump, claiming that both men were willing to die in defense of “freedom and democracy.”
Critic Disputes Politico’s Portrayal of Ryan Routh’s Motives in Alleged Assassination Attempt on Trump
Despite these direct statements, Politico’s article took the position that Routh’s motives were unclear, leaving readers to guess at his reasoning behind the alleged assassination attempt.
The critique argues that Politico failed to engage with the substance of Routh’s letter and instead relied on a narrative of ambiguity. The article’s conclusion echoed this uncertainty, asserting that the reasons behind Routh’s actions could not be fully understood.
Yet, the critic points out that the letter itself made Routh’s political beliefs crystal clear. Routh’s anger at Trump’s policies and his desire to prevent what he saw as a dangerous concentration of power were central to his motivations, which were unmistakably linked to left-wing political rhetoric.
By downplaying the clarity of Routh’s ideological stance, the Politico piece was seen as intentionally obscuring the reality of the situation. The critic suggests that the only way to understand Routh’s motives is through the lens of his own words, which clearly mirrored the kind of anti-Trump, pro-democracy rhetoric often associated with the political left.
In the end, the critic argues, the attempt to portray Routh’s actions as stemming from a mysterious, undefined cause misses the point: his motivations were rooted in the kind of political ideology commonly espoused by Trump’s critics.
