January 09, 2011Dangerous Rhetoric Election after election, it seems like we hear the term “rhetoric” more and more. Usually used with a negative connotation, the term rhetoric is a way to explain why promises aren’t fulfilled. *Empty rhetoric* is a phrase we often hear when it comes to politicians and their campaigns.
On Saturday January 8th, 2011, the word rhetoric was used with a different group of people: talking heads. Talk show hosts and political activists have been blamed for the horrific shooting spree that took place in Arizona this past weekend. The most specific instance is the rhetoric used by Sarah Palin last year in an effort to call out House Democrats who voted for healthcare reform. Palin posted a graphic on a website that is no longer live ( www.TakeBackthe20.com <http://www.takebackthe20.com/>) that placed crosshairs on different areas of a map of the United States. Each crosshair pointed to a House Democrat who voted for the reform, which of course meant that a crosshair was pointed at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. While this was posted months ago, it was brought up in several arguments and conversations about *why* the shooter tried to kill Giffords on Saturday. This obviously led to more discussions on the rhetoric used by talk show hosts. In a comment on John Batchelor’s Facebook Fanpage, a listener stated<http://www.wabcradio.com/batchelorshow> : *“…the GOP hatred was bound to backfire in their faces...many threats were made against DEMS & the character assassinations against OBAMA were awful...it's a sad day in America.” * While it is indeed a sad day in America, I don’t think it’s fair to blame those with strong opinions for inciting the violence we saw. Politics is a public arena, one that is so often full of fiery disagreements and verbally brutal arguments. This is how it has always been in my lifetime, and I won’t predict it’ll soon change. I’m not even sure I would want it to change. The spirit of debate – theoretically – is what leads us to great legislation. In a book foreword, Penn Jillette said, “Agreeing with a lot of it is better than agreeing with all of it. It means there's something to think about and to learn.” Without strong debate and occasional disagreements, progress would be rare or maybe even non-existent. When Palin published the map with crosshairs across it, I feel safe in saying she meant no physical harm to any of the House Democrats she was pointing out, just as Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos meant no harm when he put Giffords on a target list with a bullseye. Did the rhetoric showcase poor judgment in both instances? Perhaps. But bullseyes and targets and crosshairs are all metaphors that are universally understood: We’re keeping an eye on you. In no way am I condoning the use of violent rhetoric in any instance, be it political, personal or whatever. What gets me frustrated is the assumptions many have already made about past political rhetoric and trying to turn it into something violent. Perhaps most frustrating is the fact that, at the time of writing this piece, we know very little about the gunman, Jared Loughner. At one point he was described as a *Communist Manifesto* reading Tea Partier. Most recently I’ve heard him described as a left-wing pothead. How can we immediately jump to assumptions about what fueled this man’s rage without even knowing who he is? Palin didn’t shoot Rep. Giffords. Not one talking head shot a bullet at the violent scene in Arizona. The bullets came from a gun owned by a very sick individual. Political debate and intense rhetoric can’t pull a trigger. posted by Chuck on 1/9/2011 2:33:30 PM http://wabcradio.com/article.asp?id=2074349&SPID=39244 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: > @Janefonda: It isn't enough that Palin just removed the map of Giffords > district with gun crosshairs off her website. She holds responsibility > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "WebTV Dawgs/Dittos" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<webtv-pals%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/webtv-pals?hl=en. > > -- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ J O N ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebTV Dawgs/Dittos" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/webtv-pals?hl=en.
