Almost from the moment of the Tucson shootings, we have been hearing a stream of reporting along the lines of: “While it appears the shooter had indications of mental illness and nothing connects him to any extremist rhetoric,…” — pause — “we are going to latch onto this story as a platform from which to discuss extreme political rhetoric anyway.”
This isn’t just silly, it is dangerous. We do have segments of our political class who use virulent rhetoric to achieve political ends. Whether the media gives such messages a pass, under free speech considerations or otherwise, or the media condemns it as reprehensible, the result is the same. Rhetoric requires attention to be powerful, and either way the corrosive speakers gain their desired power.
There is a particularly raw example going around the past couple of days, the now-infamous political map issued by Sarah Palin, identifying vulnerable House Democrats in swing districts, using an unfortunate “cross hairs” graphic. What interests me most is the reaction of the anti-Palin forces who, in the wake of the Tucson shootings, have decried Palin’s map as a prime example of this sort of violence-inciting rhetoric. I ask myself, are there people who really think the intent of this map was to incite people to pick up a gun and assassinate Democratic candidates?
I can list all sorts of reasons not to believe this. Right at the top of the list is the obvious reality that nothing would be more politically counterproductive. Think how potent a political force sympathy for Rep. Giffords will be going forward, just as it would have been for, God forbid, her Democratic successor. Killing — literally killing — one’s political opponents is not a recipe for majority electoral success.
Beyond that, there are these truths. The very term “cross-hairs” is widely used as a metaphor. Here is an article from the NY Times just this past November, headlined, “Corporate Lawyers in the Cross Hairs” (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/putting-lawyers-in-the-cross-hairs/). Was the NY Times reporting that snipers had taken up residence in various corporate boardrooms, their gun sights trained on the corporate lawyers? Don’t think so.
I use the “cross hairs” phrase occasionally myself, and I’ve never owned, held or shot a gun since an entertaining hour of skeet shooting with a work associate more than 25 year ago. I never even connect my use of the phrase to the literal idea of a gun scope. For that matter, cross hairs are used in periscope sites, too, right? I doubt submarines were in Palin’s mind at the time her map came out, but it serves to demonstrate that this is a generic, multi-purpose phrase used in many contexts besides gun scopes.
To those who have been quick to condemn Palin’s use of this unfortunate metaphor, and have raised the spector of this type of rhetoric in connection with this weekend’s shootings, I urge you to be midful that extremist rhetoric works only because we have created a world in which shaded information and outright disinformation are effective. One may think that stretching and distorting the meaning of Palin’s map into “go shoot Democrats” is a necessary counterweight to right-wing rhetorical excess. But doing so only perpetuates the destructively fertile conditions in which rhetorical excess of all stripes can flourish. You distort them; they justify distorting you. And thus the cycle continues, and we the people lose.
January 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I have to strongly disagree with your post. Words do have consequences. They have a life of their own. And heard by individuals who are unstable or angry or disillusioned, the results can be either uncomfortable or disastrous. I know a bit about rhetoric, having gotten my Masters in it. Words bring forth our inner thoughts and they also reinforce what we believe. The U.S. is a violent country — we glorify beating people at a game, or at a race or at a competition. Palin could have chosen better. She chose not to and so she became part of the problem.
January 11, 2011 at 9:08 pm
I’m not sure we disagree all that much, SDS. I do believe there is a direct, insidious and dangerous link between the inflammatory rhetoric and the inflamed actions. While I don’t think Sarah Palin or her cross hairs map is explicitly culpable here — I don’t have any reason to think Loughner took his marching orders from her or the infamous map — I do think that the overall invective-laden tone creates the climate in which people like Jared Loughner are emboldened to act.
The idea I was trying to present, perhaps unsuccessfully, is a different one. I was trying to argue that, once the condemnations from the left move past the rational limits, they not only become part of the destructive cycle, they become part of what enables the other side to engage in this extremism. Condemn extremist rhetoric, by all means. Offer constructive alternatives, absolutely. But the minute one puts forth the idea that Palin et al. want — literally want — people to go out and assassinate Democrats, one has become the problem, intensifying the corrosive environment without which Palin and Beck and Bachmann and the others could not exist.
In the words of “Joshua” in WarGames: “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
January 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I do see your point and I thank you for the clarification. Of course I don’t believe that Palin called for an assassination through her words and actions. But I am reminded of how powerful a persuasive leader can be — Hitler comes to mind and Jim Jones, the cult leader. I’m by no means trying to imply that any of our current pundits and talk show hosts have that kind of persuasive ability — but they certainly have shown that they can amass quite an ignorant following. But we’ve all remained silent too long on the topic of civil discourse – and the lack of that, in part, helped Hitler and Jones proceed down their destructive paths.
January 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm
You might take a look at this thoughtful post today: http://afeatheradrift.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/welcome-to-america-land-of-the-violent/
January 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Thank you for your analysis. Rhetoric has become vitrolic and incidents such as the shooting help us to evaluate and discuss. But this distracts from that fact that a mentally unstable person was able to walk into a store and buy a gun in a state that fought hard against gun control. There is a price we pay for our freedoms. To attribute this incident to Sarah Palin is saying she has a greater influence than she does. She does not represent the mainstream. She represents the ability of the extremes, both left and right, to have access to the public airways that were not available before cable. The voice of the extremes are now made public. This discussion will play itself out and the political dialogue will return to its level of incivility and the cycle will begin again.
January 12, 2011 at 12:33 am
Well said, and thanks for reading my blog.
January 14, 2011 at 5:57 am
I agree. I think this tragedy is less an example of how rhetoric can lead to violence and instead, more an example of how we, as a public, have in many ways lost our sense of restraint. Now it’s being proposed (again) that the only way we can it (along with civility and compassion) is if it’s legislated. There’s something seriously wrong with that, isn’t there?