Sparking Uprising?

It is still unclear whether the shooting of Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was politically motivated, but it is clear that the increasingly bellicose rantings of conservative leaders and popular culture personalities could be leading the country along a very dangerous course. Impassioned political discourse has always been part of the American experience and it often leads to more healthy manifestations of democratic participation and debate. Yet one wonders if we are on the verge of a return to the political violence of the 60s, where assassinations and massive violence confronted attempts to alter American politics. Today, tea party candidates and personalities like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are capitalizing on popular discontent in ways that could have dangerous implications.

Some examples from a New York Times article today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print):

- Sarah Palin's infamous "cross hairs" map that included gun targets focused on a number of close races, including that of Giffords
- Sharron Angle speaking of "domestic enemies" in the Congress and "Second Amendment remedies"
- Rick Barber using a political ad to "gather your armies"
- Michael Steele saying he hoped to send Nancy Pelosi to the "firing line" last year
- Glenn Beck claims that Obama faced an assassination attempt

The general discourse of socialism, tyranny and fascism employed by the right since Obama's run to the presidency are clearly absurd exaggerations of a President who many on the left see as essentially a centrist. But the larger issue is whether it is irresponsible to use rhetoric that could incite violence for political ends. The harm principle Supreme Court decision against "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" showed us that there are limits to freedom of speech. Several decision since fortified this position, including the Scheneck case establishing the clear and present danger precedent and the more recent hate speech legislation. Political discourse on both ends of the political spectrum should I believe be held to two standards: 1) Does not incite violence and 2) Has some semblance of truth attached to it. The latter is particularly necessary in political advertising, the largely unregulated sphere where manipulation, lies and fear mongering reign supreme -- often helping to decide elections. The public must hold politicians responsible for the ramifications of their words and demand a more reasoned, though not necessarily civil, level of dialogue. Civility is too often used as a cynical ploy to cut off real debate, as was the case post-911, but some responsibility to what we say and what it means does seem a reasonable demand.