Greg Munford

The Rhetoric of Political Violence Exploded

Posted 10.22.18, the day before the pipe-bomb story broke the news.

We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:

SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
“CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
“TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.

This week… the rhetoric of political violence exploded. This isn’t funny. And not just because it could lead to people getting hurt. There is no greater anathema to the fabric of the democratic process than the reckless vocabulary of violence, in whatever form: incitement, encouragement or feigned outrage—as the “shocked“ National Socialists demonstrated when they accused the “other” of burning the Reichstag in 1934: “Look at the violence ‘they’ committed!!! How dare they! How are we going to react??”

I’m not saying we’re Weimar II. But words are not powerless. Consider the “N” word. Or “fag.” Or “kike.” Or read up on how effective the epithet “cockroach” was in inspiring neighbors to hack neighbors to death in Rwanda. The language of violence is what lays the emotional groundwork for the actions of violence. Actions, after all, are merely the execution of thought. And words, beginning with the “harmless” de-humanization of name-calling, are where it starts.

At best, the rhetoric of violence is a ratcheting up in the hardening of constructive discourse: Not only are “they” the enemy, but they are physically dangerous. “Who can reason with ‘them?’ Cleary ‘they’ don’t play by the rules – so now there are no rules”. And every step in the continuing slide into the us-vs-them gutter of virulent polarization makes it harder to dig out by normalizing, even celebrating, intransigence as not just justified, but necessary.

A core level of trust in the decency, sincerity and virtue our fellow citizens, no matter how deeply we dislike and disagree with them, is one of the foundational necessities of a free, democratic society. And there is no stronger linguistic tool for erosion of that thrust than the rhetoric of violence. And in the words of the Latin aphorism, “Trust, like the soul, never returns once it is gone.”

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the recent headlines demonstrating the atmosphere of violence that has erupted this week. They are not broken out red-vs-blue because, frankly, it’s hard to keep track of all the finger pointing.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO VIOLENT? Two GOP Candidates Assaulted in Minnesota:

Here Are The Facts: Right Wing Political Violence Far Outweighs Left Wing ‘Angry Mobs’

Conservative Pundit Warns the Republican Party is About to Become ‘Angrier, Loopier and More Belligerent’

LEFT-WING VIOLENCE: Two Republican Candidates Punched in Minnesota

Reporter Who Was Assaulted By GOP Congressman Calls Him a Coward

Multiple Reports Of Left-Wing Partisans Attacking GOP Candidates, Staffers

Right-wing group was camped on rooftop with weapons ahead of major rally

Leftist Calmly Takes Down Cruz Signs, Suddenly Appears Possessed & Charges Owner

As Far-Right Groups Incite Violence on Both Coasts, Officials Struggle to Respond

Republican headquarters vandalized

Proud Boys’ Violence: A Pattern

The president is in favor of Republicans assaulting journalists