devil’s advocate
Aggression in American Politics: The Beginning of the End? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poisonous political discourse in the United States of America is a noble tradition, and an endless goldmine of humour. Even outright political violence enjoys a fine history in the States. But the Arizona massacre has led some to decry the tone of recent political discourse and even suggest that the Arizona shooter may have been influenced by the aggressive rhetoric of media pundits and some politicians. While I have no idea what the shooter’s personal motives were, I can respond to the notion that violent rhetoric is somehow a new thing and reflects a decline of the American political system. When I said that this stuff was a noble tradition, I wasn’t kidding. Alexis de Tocqueville, road trip enthusiast and famous observer of early American democracy, arrived in America in 1831 and was astonished by the level of vitriol he saw in the press. He preserved one of the first articles he read, from which I shall selectively quote, “In all this affair, the language of [President] Jackson has been that of a heartless despot… intrigue is his native element… but the hour of retribution approaches… and [he will be forced to] end his days in some retirement, where he may curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue with which his heart is likely to remain forever unacquainted.” The article flat out states that President Jackson was an insane megalomaniac who needed to be removed from office; American journalists have never fucked around when it comes to expressing extreme opinions. The views of journalists aren’t just ineffectual ranting either; they articulate popular ideas and their tone is a reflection of the passion their readers feel. It has been claimed that the media has incited violence, but this seems unlikely to me due to the nature of media as a mirror of public opinion. It seems much more likely that this is a case of confusion between correlation and causation; saying that media causes violence implies
Lewis Peaty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that it can somehow fold a person’s anger back on itself again and again until they lose control. Maybe this really can happen to some people, but I strongly suspect that if it were common then all countries with free press would collapse pretty quickly. Whether or not media actually stokes the flames, political upheaval frequently turns into violence. You can pick any contentious issue and find a time when talk has broken down and the conflict has become physical. From militant student protesting to trashing abortion clinics, all that’s required is two opposing groups of people who won’t compromise. That said, political upheaval has been declining for years. A quick visit to the trusty, and obviously infallible, Wikipedia List of Civil Unrest Incidents page tells me that the past decade has actually been pretty trivial in terms of politically motivated violence, especially when compared to previous eras. Almost every “riot” involved sport or music events, with no recorded deaths. In comparison to the 60s, 70s, and 80s, when people died protesting war and discrimination, the present era is pretty docile. Regardless of how we compare to previous eras, the recent polarisation of the political spectrum is still a legitimate cause for concern. What if the aggressive political climate is foreshadowing future unrest? When Glenn Beck held his “Restoring Honor” rally I laughed out loud at the visual analogy to Hitler’s infamous rallies and I know many people were a bit unnerved. But you have to keep things in perspective and I’ve come up with a theory to help you do that by blaming the Internet. In much the same that way the Internet allows people from all over the world to form subcultures devoted to dressing up as animals and having sex with each other; or becoming inhumanly fat and having sex with each other; or watching anime and not having sex with anyone, the
Internet also allows people with brainless political ideas to get together and express themselves. Using my own internet skills, I dug around for a nugget of conversation which I felt was representative of your average, internet savvy Tea Partier. Avid YouTube commenter PotHead420Pro wrote, “Obama and republicans and THE US FEDERAL RESERVE are controled by Big Business and banking czars and who manipulate communist healthcare forms on behaf of Wall Street. WAKE UP AMERICA!” To which 2012isnear responded, “I agree – the truth is out there but average Amerikans are edukated into stupidity. sorry… I kannot use my see key sinse I spill koffee on my keyboard :(” Powerful stuff. But if you think that those guys and the Tea Party, which represents them, are a threat to democracy then you’re wrong. The Tea Partiers are just regular people who are angry because the economy is terrible and politicians are largely to blame, but now they have a voice. A lot of vicious stuff has been said but it really pales in comparison to previous eras when people literally fought for their lives against discrimination or against going to war. Fears of a real threat to the US political system are completely baseless while Tea Party protests are still being put to shame by British undergraduates rioting over student loans. The Tea Partiers don’t even share a coherent ideology as far as I can tell, other than animosity towards the government. I’m predicting that if the recession improves, then Tea Party sympathies will die down until the next time the stock market crashes. And if this is a high water mark for 21st century political strife, then the USA is doing pretty well.
Illustration by CamdenWatts
devil’s advocate
08