Dear Editor,
Monday's editorial, "Reflecting on the Tucson Massacre," while correctly mentioning that there is no link to recent Republican rhetoric and the horrifying Jan. 8 shooting, went on to accuse only Republicans of "[using] violent language to score political points," which apparently is a result of their unique "right-wing blood lust." The editorial mentions, for example, Congresswoman [Michele] Bachmann [R-Minn.] ... telling constituents to get "armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax."
Reading this, I was reminded of then-Senator [Barack] Obama's promise to his opponents "[i]f they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." This is a bipartisan part of political discourse in this country. Democrats and Republicans alike "target" districts and have "war rooms," all as part of political campaigns (which themselves refer to protracted, violent military engagements). Of course, it would be absurd to consider any of those things evidence of violent rhetoric, but the same is true of both the Bachmann and Obama quotes when viewed in appropriate context.
I see no problem with violent metaphors to describe political conflict and remain skeptical that these expressions incite violence. But if we really are going to endeavor to remove homage to violence from our political discourse, it will be a monumental task given how they are so deeply imbedded even in to the most innocuous political phrases.
The task is even less achievable when the issue is presented as a problem of a single political party or ideology, which is unfortunately what happened in the Daily.
Sincerely,
Nathan Beaton
Class of 2012
