Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Tucson, there have been an avalanche of words produced- on the need for reconciliation, the need for more guns, the needs for censorship, the need for…well, you get the idea. A lot of us (myself included) have had an awful lot to say on the subject of civility in public life, but from where I sit, one thing seems crystal clear: we’re not handling this very well. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, of course; this country was divided along partisan lines before the massacre occurred. No reasonable person could, or would, assume that we’re just suddenly going to decide to stop throwing rhetorical bombs at one another. Old habits die hard, no?
An optimist might hope that we could come together and realize that the language used by both sides has contributed to a poisonous atmosphere, and that the public discourse is in serious need of a change in tone. The use of violent imagery, gun metaphors, and other language designed to demonize, degrade, and in some cases destroy one’s ideological adversaries is just plain wrong. For Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR),
[T]his moment should be “an opportunity for us to rethink how we talk about our differences of opinion, that we should rethink when we start to use imagery that sounds like we’re talking about the use of force.” It’s a time to reject “the demonization, the language that aims to strip away the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you,” the idea that the way to conduct political debate is “to say that we’re patriotic and they’re not.”
It might also be good if we stopped using gunsights in campaign materials.
This isn’t to say that we can’t or shouldn’t disagree, or that we should refrain from healthy debate. Americans have always been a contentious and disputatious lot, and living in a free society means encouraging and accepting the free and healthy exchange of ideas. In this day and age, though, I think we could all benefit by taking a step back and dialing down the rhetoric. Really, what do we have to lose…unless you enjoy the prospect of more tragedies along the lines of what occurred in Tucson?
How about we all keep a few things in mind?:
Blood is not a metaphor. Couching anger, rage, and disagreement in the language of warfare and bloodshed can have adverse and tragic real-world consequences.
Advocating, however “humorously”, for the destruction of those you disagree with is both anti-democratic and just plain wrong.
“Socialism” is not the hallmark and defining characteristic of any government initiative you happen to disagree with.
Shouting and name-calling are not effective ways to convince those not on your side of the superiority of your beliefs.
Advocating for the destruction or expulsion of your ideolgical adversaries is simply not a supportable (much less American) value.
Screaming that you have the imprimatur of “The American People” means…well, absolutely nothing. “The American People” is not some monolithic force possessed of a single opinion. Anyone claiming that “The American People” have spoken really ought to put down the crack pipe and take a good look around.
Employing gun metaphors (cross-hairs, “Don’t Retreat, Reload!”, “Second Amendment Remedies”, etc.) can and may well send the message to the mentally unbalanced or the highly suggestible that violent resolution to disagreement is acceptable.
Words can stir and inflame passions in unpredictable ways.
Invoking Jefferson’s famous quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” can and should be interpreted as a thinly-veiled endorsement of violence. It also demonstrates that you understand nothing of the context behind what Jefferson was saying.
Losing an election does not mean that you’re “suffering under tyranny”. It means that your side lost an election. Period. If you feel that you’re on the right side, you keep working toward the next election.
Being “mad as Hell” only make you look like an outtake from a Paddy Chayefsky film. Your impotent rage accomplishes nothing. It brings you no closer to your goal- whatever it might be. It makes you look as if you have nothing of value to offer. Worst of all, it makes you look like a petulant child.
Extremism and intolerance in the service of liberty is no virtue.
Being convinced of the absolute superiority of your religious beliefs does not ipso facto connote the absolute right to advocate for the destruction of countries or peoples that happen not to share those enlightened beliefs.
The mere fact that someone disagrees with you does not make that person an enemy of the state. It simply means that they’re exercising their First Amendment rights. (You DO remember the First Amendment, right?)
Here in America, we live under the rule of law. This means that advocating for the violent elimination of your ideological adversaries, or, even worse, actually working to eliminate said adversaries means that you simply don’t understand what it means to be an American.
We all play a part in helping to ensure that public discourse becomes and remains a safe environment open and available to all Americans. I’m not going to pretend to both the Left and Right are equally culpable for the degradation of the current state of public discourse. Any reasonable observer knows where most of the vitriol and extremism has emerged from. Still, I’m tired of discussing that part of the problem. What I do want to see happen is the creation of a civil environment where ALL Americans can safely participate without fear of intimidation or repression. I want to see ALL of us taking responsibility for fixing the problem, even if we may not all be equally responsible for the creation of the problem.
Words have meaning, and words all too often can lead to unwanted, unintended, and unpleasant consequences. Tucson may well have been one of those consequences. There’s no way to be absolutely certain of this, of course, but wouldn’t it make sense to look at Tucson as a harbinger of what can happen when we allow public discourse to become the angry, emotionally-charged ragefest that it’s become? Shouldn’t six more dead Americans be sufficient to serve as a clarion call for the need for civility?
I can’t speak for or control anyone else, so I’m going to work to be accountable for the language I use. Lord knows I’ve done a damn poor job of it…and I’ve made a commitment to myself to stop contributing to the level of anger and vitriol. I’m just hoping that a few more Americans will join me in traveling down this road.
