By David French
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
What, exactly, is the relationship between rhetoric and
violence? Whenever there is a politically motivated murder, there is an
immediate race to find and fix the “real” blame for the attack — to find that
rhetoric that allegedly motivated the murder and discredit the speaker. Perhaps
the worst modern example is the rush to blame Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner’s
attack on Arizona Democratic representative Gabrielle Giffords.
In the absence of any
evidence that Loughner was motivated by politics, some on the Left launched one
of our tiresome “national conversations” on civility. Others went so far as to
blame the Tea Party. Here was Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva:
[When] you stoke these flames, and
you go to public meetings and you scream at the elected officials, you threaten
them — you make us expendable, you make us part of the cannon fodder. For a
while, you’ve been feeding this hatred, this division . . . you feed it, you
encourage it. . . . Something’s going to happen. People are feeding this
monster. . . . Some of the extreme right wing has made demonization of elected
officials their priority.
The political motivation is obvious. Tie an opponent to
dreadful violence, and you can discredit him entirely, banishing him from
mainstream discourse. It’s an impulse not confined to the Left. Just this week,
the Cleveland Police Association president declared that “President Obama has blood
on his hands” despite the fact that he never — not once — stated or implied
that violence against the police was justifiable or acceptable.
But what about the explicit calls for violence that do exist? We’ve seen Black Lives Matter
protests degenerate into violence, with protesters cheering loudly when police
are hurt. We’ve seen marchers chant, “What do we want? Dead cops!” or “Pigs in
a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” Twitter has been a cesspool
of violent anti-cop sentiment, with some apparent Black Lives Matter
supporters openly celebrating the murders in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
Two things can be true at once. First, it is true that
ultimate responsibility for violent acts rests with the criminal and his or her
co-conspirators. A person does not lose his moral agency merely because his
peer group is evil or because he is influenced by calls for violence.
Second, it is also true that calls for violence —
especially when those calls come from one’s peer group — can be persuasive. One
of the most obvious truths in human history is that words matter. Words can
motivate revolutions, and they can certainly motivate murder. While I’ve got my
disagreements with such clichés as “The pen is mightier than the sword,” no one
doubts that the pen is mighty — and that’s precisely why our nation’s founding
generation strove to protect free speech.
Words can motivate virtue and vice. Would enough young men and women be willing to enlist to
serve during America’s longest war if the military wasn’t America’s most
respected institution? Would our military be able to fill its ranks if soldiers
were universally mocked and reviled?
Because words matter, it is the responsibility of the
citizen to deploy them carefully. Because words matter, it is the
responsibility of the state to maximize individual liberty. Indeed, there is no
true freedom without freedom of speech. Arguably, it is the freedom to
disagree, to debate, and to dissent that ultimately makes our other freedoms
possible. Without debate and dissent, there is no reform.
Thus, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in
punishing violent acts and condemning vicious speech even while we protect
individual liberty even to the point of permitting the most hateful of chants
and slogans. We can and should call out fellow citizens for their immoral and
hateful exhortations. We can and should discredit hateful movements. But that’s
not a call for censorship; it’s a call for cultural self-control. Black Lives
Matter shouldn’t be banned, but many of its supporters should be ashamed, and
the rest of our culture should unite in rejecting their extremism.
Who really has blood on their hands? The killer and
anyone who helped him. Who should feel guilt and shame? Each and every Twitter
troll or Black Lives Matter marcher who called for violence and blood on the
streets. For those people, sunlight is the best disinfectant. They should be
relentlessly exposed and discredited. And any movement that harbors them, that
marches with them, or excuses their rage as somehow “understandable” or
“justifiable” or “predictable” should be rejected.
Surely the Left will agree. After all, if they were
willing to condemn Sarah Palin without
evidence, surely they’ll reject Black Lives Matter extremism with evidence. After all, when “you’ve
been feeding this hatred, this division . . . you feed it, you encourage it . .
. something’s going to happen.” Something has happened. And it keeps happening.
Will the rhetoric change?
No comments:
Post a Comment