by RICH CASSIDY on JANUARY 12, 2011
When events shock us, there is an opportunity to reconsider our settled views in a new light.
Certainly, Saturday’s attempt to assassinate U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and the accompanying blood bath, was a shocking event. The 6 dead, the 14 wounded, and the families and loved ones of each victim, are in the hearts and prayers of every American of good will. For a few short hours, the nation stood together in grief.
It is human to ask why such events occur. It did not take long before some started to charge that the vitriolic language that has become commonplace in American political debate caused this violent rampage. Immediately others claimed that such charges were bald attempts to exploit the tragedy for political gain. Once again, the charges and counter charges are flying.
We don’t really know whether vicious political speech was in any sense a cause of this attack. We may never know. At best, sorting out human motivation is a chancy business and there is good reason to wonder if this shooter was simply out of touch with reality.
If the point of asking why this happened is not to find a scapegoat or scapegoats, but to reduce the likelihood of repetition, perhaps we should agree on at least this: As Representative Giffords said herself after her office was vandalized: “words have consequences.”
Over-the-top rhetoric is used in political settings for a reason. It is intended to communicate viscerally, to stir the emotions in order to spur action to advance a political cause. Anger and fear are, after all, the emotions of change. They activate our ancient fight or flight response to danger. Perhaps all the “action” that is intended is voting, or contributing, or writing letters to the editor.
But when people are stirred up, they may do more than vote, or contribute, or write. We don’t know whether political hate speech had any role in this tragedy. But we do understand an underlying dynamic — whether or not it was actually in play here – that inflamed language can indeed incite outrageous conduct.
Our law protects a very broad range of political speech. Under the First Amendment, speakers can communicate almost anything short of directly inciting imminent violence, without fear of governmental interference. I am convinced that this is as it should be.
But the voters are not required to reward politicians and commentators who choose to play close to the edge of violence. When we hear an appeal to violence in politics, even if a metaphorical one, the hairs should stand up on the backs of our necks. We should think carefully about what we have heard or read and ask whether a demagogue is at work.
Together, by the confluence of our individual choices in terms of who we support and vote for and who we listen to and watch, we can promote calmer, more dispassionate political discourse.
And we should.
Rich