Violence
When volatile political rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the country's only late-term abortion doctors, nothing changed. Sure, Fox News stopped referring to him as "Dr. Tiller the baby killer," but nothing really changed. When political extremism led to the Oklahoma City bombings carried out by Timothy McVeigh, nothing changed. Commentary television and radio programs continued to feature divisive, polarizing voices. Now that six innocent Arizonians (including a nine year-old girl and a federal judge) are dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as well as a handful of others, are severely injured after a politically-charged shooting, will anything change? The past record indicates no.
The volatile nature of political rhetoric today is incredible. With subtly violent undertones, political speech- whether that be from commentators of politicians themselves- has inspired acts of violence before and probably will continue to.
Too often in America, commentators don't understand the repercussions when they insinuate that politicians ought to be physically targeted or promote "second amendment remedies" to "take out" an opponent. Some people, like Jared Loughner, the man charged with the Arizona crimes, are bound to take that rhetoric literally.
But even with this consideration, a real change in political speech is unlikely. American violence metaphors are simply rooted too deeply in the political system. Mainstream politicians like Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin use hunt-like and attack-based language too casually and without real consequence. Conservatives, of course, do not own the territory of violent rhetoric nor of mentally deranged extremists, but it is undeniable that the most recent and controversial examples of these can be traced back to ultra-extreme conservatives. Anti-Obama Americans who attended 2009 town halls with the president were seen on several occasions with guns strapped to their person and wearing shirts with slogans like "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," which has its own bloody past in the history of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, these sort of actions and speech aren't going to change anytime soon. But if the rhetoric can't change, then maybe the policies can. Loughner passed the federal background check to buy his automatic weapon with flying colors, and purchased a 30+ round magazine without a problem. These are not weapons of self-defense or of hunters. A magazine with that many rounds should be exclusive to the military and to the police force, just like it was through the 90s.
Six innocent people died last weekend in a violent attack in a time of politically charged speech. This attack could not have happened if Loughner did not have access to the weaponry he used.
It is horrendous that this attack occurred. It is even more so that it could have been prevented by regulations to gun control (to which, sadly, Congresswoman Giffords was opposed) or by a conscious realization by commentators that their rhetorically violent flourishes are not always as level-headedly received as they may think. But what is most unfortunate is that these commentators may never have this realization or make a change.
Read more »
The volatile nature of political rhetoric today is incredible. With subtly violent undertones, political speech- whether that be from commentators of politicians themselves- has inspired acts of violence before and probably will continue to.
Too often in America, commentators don't understand the repercussions when they insinuate that politicians ought to be physically targeted or promote "second amendment remedies" to "take out" an opponent. Some people, like Jared Loughner, the man charged with the Arizona crimes, are bound to take that rhetoric literally.
But even with this consideration, a real change in political speech is unlikely. American violence metaphors are simply rooted too deeply in the political system. Mainstream politicians like Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin use hunt-like and attack-based language too casually and without real consequence. Conservatives, of course, do not own the territory of violent rhetoric nor of mentally deranged extremists, but it is undeniable that the most recent and controversial examples of these can be traced back to ultra-extreme conservatives. Anti-Obama Americans who attended 2009 town halls with the president were seen on several occasions with guns strapped to their person and wearing shirts with slogans like "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," which has its own bloody past in the history of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, these sort of actions and speech aren't going to change anytime soon. But if the rhetoric can't change, then maybe the policies can. Loughner passed the federal background check to buy his automatic weapon with flying colors, and purchased a 30+ round magazine without a problem. These are not weapons of self-defense or of hunters. A magazine with that many rounds should be exclusive to the military and to the police force, just like it was through the 90s.
Six innocent people died last weekend in a violent attack in a time of politically charged speech. This attack could not have happened if Loughner did not have access to the weaponry he used.
It is horrendous that this attack occurred. It is even more so that it could have been prevented by regulations to gun control (to which, sadly, Congresswoman Giffords was opposed) or by a conscious realization by commentators that their rhetorically violent flourishes are not always as level-headedly received as they may think. But what is most unfortunate is that these commentators may never have this realization or make a change.
Posts
