Gabrielle Giffords’ mentor, Robert Reich, has said that he believed Gabby would be the first or second female president of the United States. She was a rising star in the Democratic Party and much loved by her constituents in Tucson. Now she is fighting for her life. No one can make sense of such a senseless tragedy.
Worldwide Spotlight
Reporters from the U.S., Germany, France, Mexico and the UK, among others, are covering the story. Of particular interest to them is the incendiary political rhetoric that many believe may have played a role in the Tucson killings. Much has been reported about Sarah Palin’s U.S. map that used a riflescope to identify the congressional districts on her “hit list.”
Of course, we will never know what impact Palin’s map, other negative images or violent rhetoric had on the shooter—Jared Loughner—but we do know that words and images have the power to harm or heal. If there’s one thing we should have learned from history, from Hitler to Manson, it’s that when violent ideas end up in the wrong hands, there can be dire consequences.
Is there a place for cruel and threatening rhetoric in our political discourse, especially since we know that tragedies can occur? In a democracy, competition is required for a healthy dialogue; but the way we have been expressing our differences is now under scrutiny worldwide.
The Super Bowl of Politics
Politics is not the only area where we see competition and aggressiveness. You can see it acted out every Sunday during football season. But the key difference between the competition and aggressiveness in football versus politics is that football players adhere to strict rules of conduct. Players respect and follow those rules because they are enforced. If players break the rules, they can be penalized, pulled out of the game, fined or suspended. There are consequences that are written into the bylaws of the game and we all accept them.
In our political system, however, there are no strict rules of conduct. People can say what they want. Politicians and others in positions of power can use violent language, metaphors and images of such things as guns, hunting, and targets to convey their point. If they don’t like their opponent, if they believe that they are promoting the wrong policies, they can put them on a “hit list.”
From Every Challenge Comes Opportunity
But this tragedy gives us the opportunity to question our political rhetoric—and that is one positive by-product of this tragic incident. We have a chance to reflect on the power of rhetoric not just in our political dialogue, but also in every area of life where words are important to us.
As a speech coach, I think about words a lot. I believe that words have inherent power and can be used to cultivate hope, optimism and goodness, or they can be used to stimulate fear, oppression and hatred. In speeches, relationships, families, societies, organizations, and yes, in politics, words matter. And just as violent themes, images, threats and aggression have no place in families, they also have no place in our political communication.
In football and other aggressive sports that entertain Americans on a regular basis, rules are required for the safety and civility of the game. Rules govern not just what happens on the field, but in the stands as well. The fans want to know that things are under control so they can root for their team of choice without fear of reprisal from the competing team. Fans want to be able to fully participate in the experience without fear.
Is that too much to expect from our political leaders as well?
I welcome your comments on this post.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:35 am
We seem to have mistaken our right of free speech and the concept of democracy as a platform for anything goes. The events in Arizon have made certain people stop and think about what those rights really entail. A New York Times commentary of January 12, wonders if media stars such as Glen Beck should be allowed an open pulpit to say anything they want. And does Fox News share in the responsibility of allowing their media stars to keep their tone bellicose and incindiary. It’s a fine line they tread. But what the same commentary argues is that there is no fine line when those comments are out and out lies, meant only to get people angry, frustrated and tuned in for more of the same.
Obviously, not everyone responds in the same way. But there are just enough people out there, listening, taking it all in, who will in fact respond violently. Perhaps not directly, given the level of instability this newest assasin seems to maintain, but certainly just enough to catapult anger over to action. Can’t we then conclude that allowing rhetoric such as one often hears in the media and for which some are highly paid to maintain, becomes a travesty of our democratic right of free speech? Who or what becomes the watchdog that draws the line?
What about individuals with a huge following such as Sarah Palin, who have access to so many comminication outlets, who have no supervision or watchdog but their own sense of what is over the top? Who tells them to choose their words more prudently? What will it take to see that words are interpreted according to what we want them to mean and that if you are unstable to begin with, those words can help you to justify violence.
This man’s focus was political, or he would have chosen a non-political venue to express his wrath. Apparently, his was not a random, oh, I think I’ll go out and kill a few people, moment. The fact that it occured in Arizona, where the gun laws are so lax, where the principal victim was against gun control, is an ironic detail that will forever remain inscrutable to anyone in the United States and abroad who tries to reason that access to arms that kill anything bigger than a duck, will eventually lead to mindless killing of human beings.
While banning such weapons won’t ever be the complete answer to eradicating slaughters such as these, I would challenge anyone to deny that it would certainly make it more difficult. And what about words? Can’t the same argument be made for asking for more truth and prudence of anyone availing themselves of our collective democratic right to free speech? Doesn’t Democracy also entail a sense of civic responsibility? Perhaps rhetorical self-engrossment is what has run amok.
December 30th, 2014 at 1:22 pm
A motivating discussion is worth comment. I do believe that you need to write more on this issueTo the next! Best wishes!!
January 1st, 2015 at 10:59 pm
Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on blogs I
stumbleupon every day. It’s always useful to read content from
other authors and practice something from other
sites.
June 1st, 2015 at 3:40 am
I’ve really noticed that credit restoration activity has to be conducted with tactics. If not, it’s possible you’ll find yourself causing harm to your position. In order to succeed in fixing to your credit rating you have to confirm that from this time you pay all of your monthly dues promptly prior to their timetabled date. It is really significant since by not accomplishing that area, all other moves that you will decide to use to improve your credit positioning will not be effective. Thanks for discussing your tips.