Joe Biden, terrorists and Tea Partiers
TweetVice President Joe Biden (as well as Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa) are reported to have described the Tea Party-type Republicans in Congress as “terrorists” during a closed-door meeting of congressional Democrats yesterday, convened to discuss the debt deal. Hypocritical? Of-course, and most especially in the wake of President Obama’s big speech on political civility in Tucson in January, after the Loughner murder spree in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot. And on the day that Giffords returned to Congress! (Was Giffords possibly even in the room when the words about terrorists were being thrown around?)
However, while the charge of hypocrisy is entirely valid, let’s get real. Just as I was against the rush to indict everyone who’d ever used a “violent” metaphor in the wake of the Tucson shooting, I can’t subscribe to outrage with regard to Joe’s allegedly jolting words. When he called Tea Partiers terrorists, he clearly didn’t mean that they’d worn suicide vests during debt discussions and threatened to blow themselves up if they didn’t get what they want. He meant instead that their adamant sticking-to-principle—when the time-tested tradition in Washington is to deal and to sell out—had terrorized the likes of him and other old-hands at the political game. And you know what? The Tea Partiers in Congress should wear the supposed insult as a badge of honor. They were sent to Congress thanks to the votes of upstanding Americans who precisely intended that they should terrorize the likes of Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Barney Frank and even John Boehner. The fact that they have been succeeding in doing so is a great compliment to them.
The rough and tumble of American political discourse should not be limited according to some cockeyed notion of how a lunatic might respond to hearing certain words. If Joe Biden is terrorized by the Tea Party, let him call them terrorists if he wants. At least we know where he stands. By the same token, no one should be accused of inspiring violence because they say—in the midst of a political fight—”don’t retreat; reload” or by virtue of putting target crosshairs on a map to identify places where they wish to win a political contest.
I don’t believe that homicidal maniacs are created by such metaphorical devices. And I don’t believe that if we all become so incredibly fussy and prissy about our language in political debates that the homicidal maniacs won’t kill anyone anymore. (They may just want to kill more of us.)
|
|
Statements which truly incite violence are easy enough to spot. It’s when someone says, “That man should be shot,” or “That woman should be killed.” There are certainly lines of crudity that can be crossed short of that, and certainly it is fair to judge someone by the foulness of their remarks, or by who that person chooses to describe as a terrorist or as a threat to the future of the country (as in this case, people who are standing up against obscene and unsustainable levels of public debt). But to the extent that we become collectively inclined to yowl and call for the principal whenever certain words are used, I think it serves us ill. The political fights ahead are not for the fainthearted. The ones that count never are. So put on the body armor and check your ammo.
