The Politics of Tragedy

Posted by veritas on Jan 14, 2011 1:53:29 PM

The tragic murders in Arizona during the attempted assassination attempt on the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged man have resounded through our nation for the last week. They have also become a political football kicked and passed (and fumbled) by many. There are some educational and political lessons that we should learn—politics first:

  1. The political left uses tragedies to take swipes at the right even when—maybe I should say especially when—there is no cause. The left wants gun control. All facts are used to prove that it is necessary. Of course, let me be clear, this fellow should not have had a gun! The idea that somehow mass restriction on guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is dubious. I believe that the left has learned (maybe it is just instinctual) that they should toss accusation at the right whenever something like this happens especially if there is no reasonable connection between the action and anyone on the right. They do this because…
  2. The political right (in the case Governor Palin) does not handle these sorts of swipes well and too often ends up looking petty as they react to these baseless attacks. Governor Palin is not to blame for this event. The fellow was deranged. Communist Manifesto was one of his favorite books—which, of course is not one on the Glenn Beck approved list. Governor Palin, I am sure, got angry because she was unjustly smeared. Sadly, she released her video response at the same time that President Obama was at the bully pulpit. She is justified in her anger. Her response was unwise. Any sort of reaction that rebuts personal concerns looks petty—particularly against Obama’s excellent and uplifting speech. I am not sure why she did it, but, politically, I do not think it was wise.
  3. Finally, both sides of our political spectrum seem immune to both history and reason. The chant arises that our political rhetoric is over the top. It is. This “over the topness”, however, is not new. It has been a characteristic of American politics (and American life) since the third election (Adams v. Jefferson). We are given to overstatement. In some ways our political dialogue is fruitless today, but not because of its vitriol, but because of our penchant for having hurt feelings. We cannot argue with each other. We preach to the choir and stir them in a froth. Real political gains happen when leaders focus their rhetoric more broadly but still resonate with their base—see Ronald Reagan on this point.

Some of the most disturbing words in this whole event have come from the media.

First, on the left, there is a blindness to the logic of the Constitution that is sort of stunning. I heard one fellow (I believe it was Chris Matthews) say something like—“What does bearing arms have to do with free speech?” This sort of disconnect is pitiful in the media. They must know that the very reason that arms bearing is in the Bill of Rights is that a populace that has no way to protect itself from the government is ripe for tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this because a government pointed guns at them and told them to hush up. The truth is, of course, that deranged lunatics are the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Our Founders were worried about the government having all the guns. They knew that this would lead to tyranny and the end of free speech and every other freedom. In the 20th Century, too often, it led to mass murder.

The right wing media, however, does little better. They understand the reason for the Constitutional right to bear arms, but struggle to react well to masterful rhetoric on the left—especially by President Obama (the best speaker to hold the office since, at least, Reagan). They pick at his speeches. They look so petty and make him look so magnanimous. His speech was brilliant. I do not agree with all that he said in it, but the tone was uplifting, appropriate, somber, and hopeful. The right would do well to just tip their hat to the President when he makes speeches like this and then move on. Do not oppose speeches like this one. Oppose policies! President Obama’s flaw is that his rhetoric and his actions are not congruent.

Now, for education. A classical Christian education spends a lot of time helping students with their rhetoric. Our 10th through 12th grade students are called rhetoric students. Why do I focus on this so much? Barak Obama’s use of the bully pulpit at the memorial service in Arizona is a superb example of why rhetoric matters. Appropriate rhetoric (good words) presented well is a force that moves people and changes things. Good rhetoric is the closest mimic I know of to God’s power in creation. Words and ideas expressed well have an impact.

The right, if it wishes to have a representative in the Oval Office after the next election, must recognize the kind of candidate that can beat Obama. They need someone who will fight on the issues and match, or at least compete, with the sort of transcendent rhetorical flair displayed on occasion by President Obama. People—especially those outside of the choirs on the left and right—long for a President to have this sort of rhetorical power. The right should realize that they need someone who looks and acts more like a President than President Obama. This will be a tall order, and I do not know that person’s name.

Remember, however, rhetoric is important—very important—and this is why Veritas spends so much time on it.

Topics: Education, President Obama, Culture, Democracy, Politics