The furor over the role of politics in the Tucson murders reveals a more interesting debate over the role of political rhetoric in American life.
The Tucson debate opened quickly into related arguments that have, in retrospect, been waiting to explode for some time. When does political rhetoric go too far? And, what are the consequences when it does?
To state the obvious at the outset, Tea Party rhetoric isn’t complicit in murder. The argument that intemperate rhetoric leads directly to murder and chaos, or even that our political discourse is now at its nastiest, is surprising given the venerable American tradition of rancorous accusations and partisan venom.
The tendency to demonize political opponents is not new to this particular era.
The real complaint should not be that the conservative movement is guilty of dangerous rhetoric, but that much of our political rhetoric — from both sides — is inexact and childish.
The complaint should be that our words are used too often as blunt objects instead of precise instruments.
Intemperate rhetoric drowns out the better thoughts and the more complete ideas that emerge from our national conversations.
Rhetoric makes it easier to say lazy things, to speak in a kind of partisan code, and to say things we don’t exactly mean.
It helps us tell convenient half-truths and reassure ourselves that the other side is worse.
At the center of the debate over rhetorical words is a debate over a loftier theme: Words exist to give us a way to communicate truth.
When reality itself is at issue, as in the fevered mind of a killer or on the fringes of the American political debate, words begin to slip out of focus, their meanings lost and distorted at the edge of our vision.
The challenge of rhetoric, then, is that truth matters as much as tone.
George Orwell wrote in his “Politics and the English Language” that political writing is bad writing.
By this, he meant political rhetoric is exaggerated by necessity. The content and method of political speech work together to obscure the horrific truths of politics.
Neither political side intended for its statements to be taken literally. Rather, the intensity of the words obscured the meaning of the statements.
Our political rhetoric is bad rhetoric, but our politics is usually more banal than horrific. We speak loudly and without precision, and our rhetorical failings lead quickly to political ones.
The content and method of our political speech doesn’t make us ignore horrific truths. Political speech does, however, provide easy answers to questions that should demand more of us.
Examples of this careless and inflammatory speech abound in our everyday discourse.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik commented after the Tucson murders that harsh rhetoric and vitriol were behind the killer's actions. But, both liberals and conservatives are guilty of invoking rhetoric.
Conservative misinformation about Barack Obama's background is plentiful. He is not a Muslim and, as his speech at the Tucson memorial made clear again, he does love America. Somehow, it's just easier to accuse instead of engage.
What should give us hope in this political moment is that our generation seems willing to examine more closely the way we speak and reason.
We seem to want to set aside partisanship and divisiveness, as calls for unity and tolerance resonate.
Unfortunately, simply invoking the principles of charity and reason is not enough. To speak better, we must push the limits of our thought processes. To be more civil, we must be wise.
Reach Will at wmunsil@asu.edu.
