Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Trivializing violence
After Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson, some have pointed the finger at inflammatory political rhetoric.
Many singled out Sarah Palin's now-infamous "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" tweet and her 'Crosshairs' campaign map, which included Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district, as a sign that some politicians have gone too far in stoking vitriol against their political opponents. (Since the shooting, Palin reportedly emphasized in an e-mail that she "hates violence.") Others reject any connection between the shooter, who does not appear to espouse any coherent ideology, and our current political climate.
What are the ethical and moral implications of incendiary political language?
There is certainly no one-to-one correspondence between the crime in Tucson and our heated political rhetoric. Nonetheless, some contemporary political rhetoric can be quite combustible: not because it celebrates the idea of insurrection, but because it trivializes the nature of violence itself. Sarah Palin's recent statement unintentionally makes this quite clear.
The best political speech is incendiary: it fires the imagination by provoking us to think of different possibilities. It is never easy to discern the line between creative and destructive provocation since much depends on the disposition of the listener. For this reason, politicians and commentators deserve the continued protection of freedom of speech. Recent proposals to limit political expression--such as that made by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.)--would do little to calm passions, but much to restrict discussion.
Of course, freedom is not license; "can" does not necessarily mean "should." From a Christian perspective, the ethical line is crossed when we exploit the human inclination to sin. Appeals to resentment, envy and fear can lead us away from gratitude, solidarity and hope. The temptation to appeal to anger, to ignite it and stoke it, is especially attractive since anger is powerful. But precisely because negative emotions are so fast-acting, their dynamics are unstable and often unexpectedly destructive.
In a recent statement on the Tucson shooting, Sarah Palin argued that "acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own." To be sure, Jared Lee Loughner planned and carried out murder--and it was his intent and actions that caused the deaths of innocent people. But no act stands on its own; no human being is sui generis. We are all part of a community. To be true to ourselves, we must acknowledge our connection with others.
I do not believe that Palin's map with crosshairs targeting vulnerable congressional districts "caused" violence in Tucson. But I do believe the use of violent or militaristic metaphors can begin to blur the distinction between violence that is rhetorically employed and violence that is actually deployed.
Violence is serious. Using violent images as a back-drop, or as a means to pander to an angry constituency, trivializes the significance and the impact of real violence. Violent rhetoric can make us more accustomed to the idea of violence and thus less sensitive to the possibility of actual violence in our midst.
By
Mathew N. Schmalz
|
January 13, 2011; 5:00 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Why Americans fight over civility |
Next: Weapons of Destruction or an Armour of Peace: Words...words..words...
Posted by: carloslebaron | January 18, 2011 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jennas27
Sorry bulleyes are not at all the same as cross hairs, and I betting that was not followed by lots of gun imagery in the Democratic case.
The general point is dehumanizing or deamericanizing your opponents is wrong. Just because you disagree with some one, or a region of a country does not make then non-real Americans.
Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | January 17, 2011 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is no guilt that anyone need feel about Giffords. 'Lock,' as said by Ms. Palin, meant 'lock your car.' That much is clear. 'Reload' on the other hand, meant only 'reload your dishwasher.' There is absolutely no reason that anyone should feel the least smidgen of guilt over this incident. Wash your hands of it. Wash it out.
Posted by: ay00 | January 16, 2011 11:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Who is responsible for making it possible for people who are seriously mentally unstable to have guns that can shoot thirty bullets without reloading? Is any willing to speak up to the NRA's cultlike worship of all guns?
Posted by: david6 | January 14, 2011 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Guess it's ok for the Democrats to have a bulls-eye map indicating Republican DISTRICTS within an election...but when Republicans use the same imagery towards Democrat DISTRICTS all heck breaks loose.
Last I checked DISTRICTS and OFFICES within elections or anywhere else weren't the same as targeting fellow human beings for death. Merely voting those in the districts out of office.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin-target-graphic-in-perspective/
If someone isn't willing to keep this all in context...not much can be said or done.
All this hypocrisy really needs to stop. It's a smear campaign against Palin who had nothing whatsoever to do with the shootings. But it has everything to do with liberal progressives and a major mass media who desire nothing but to tarnish a woman's name for being Christian, Pro-Life, Republican...ie: Not a Liberal Progressive Feminist. This discussion wouldn't even be in progress except for those who "jumped their own gun" and began laying blame without any facts or evidence to go by.
The shooter is responsible for his own actions. He alone is accountable.
We should be more concerned about praying for the victims as well as their families.
Posted by: jennas27 | January 13, 2011 8:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Back in the times Jews were killed there were those who did the killing and those who spread the lies and inflamed the crowds to commit the murders. While the latter did not actually kill, they were complicit in the murders that took place.
So, too, Palin.
Posted by: amelia45 | January 13, 2011 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The murdering in Tucson Arizona has two main concerns, 1)-the cause of the killings, 2)- the personality of the killer.
1)-No comments made by Palin or Obama can create enough courage to anyone -with mental problems or not- to plan and kill others.
Actions are the origin of this sad event of violence: actions and no words but solely actions.
One must be blind to overpass the fact that cars in US are filled up with bloody oil, hundrerds of thousands of innocent people have been practically murdered in Iraq and other countries in order to have cheaper oil prices in US, but nobody cares about it here, and the ones who "know and are not happy" about it just can't do anyhthing against the government actions.
In California and in any other state, people voted and will vote several more times against gay marriage, but the government authorities approved such marriages and "imposed" them in society against their will, and decent people can't do anything against such actions made by the government.
The media, which finds the most convenient way to deviate the cause of this act of extreme violence, suggested the blaming of political rethoric as the cause, but such is garbage. The only responsibles for the mureders in Tucson are the actions made by the same politicians who pass laws against decency and morality, laws which are against God, against nature, against humans as individuals and as a society.
2)- Only a person with mental problems will ignore the sure risk of going against the government, while the rest of people prefer to stay away of trouble and being arrested. So, the ones who will take action against the wrong actions of the government will mostly be people with mental problems, because they are the only ones who won't think much about their jobs, their family, their future...and they feel that they must do something, anything to stop the wrong doings of the government.
The most ironic comments heard by the media is that the killer might face death penalty or life in prison, and such is an absurd assumption made in base of an individual who has showed -based in words given by several witness- to suffer mental problems! According to the law, an individual in such situation must be sent to a mental institution, no more than that.