On Violent Rhetoric

There is an argument to be had, a theoretical debate, as to whether the violent rhetoric the emanated from the Republican Party through numerous party officials and candidates last year makes a perceptible increase in the amount of actual violence in this country, especially political violence. It strikes me that it probably does, but I think you can argue reasonably that it wouldn't make a big difference. But the point is, why?

Why do you want to make that argument? Why do people on the right insist upon defending not only those who used the violent rhetoric but the violent rhetoric itself? Why is it that when we on the left have criticized them for this language they will enthusiastically deny that it is problematic, and seem to take affront to the idea that violent rhetoric in our politics is a bad thing? What's the big deal? Is it so hard not to put crosshairs over opposition party candidates? Is it so hard not to hold campaign events about firing M16s? Is it so hard not to show up at your rallies with rifles on your backs? What is it that the Republican Party's more boisterous elements would lose if they agreed to tone down their rhetoric? Why do they care so much about refusing to make that agreement?

I don't think the answer is that Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Allen West et al. actually want to see Democrats assassinated. Some Tea Party members, and perhaps some Tea Party candidates, do actually desire violence themselves, maybe; there are a lot of people in that category, so the odds that at least one of them has violent desires are pretty high, but most of them almost certainly do not. But I think they do get something specific out of violent rhetoric. I think the point of all of this is to make themselves intimidating. I'm not sure that it's anything as calculating as a desire to scare poor minority voters away from the polls by intimidating them with threats of violence, but I think there is a desire to sort of become scary and threatening and menacing. Otherwise, why bring the guns to your rallies? Why cling almost as hard to your violent political rhetoric as you clutch your actual guns? If not the desire to be intimidating, if not the desire to have the gains of threatening violence without the drawbacks of actually using violence, then what's the big deal? That's my question for those on the right who will object to things like Keith Olbermann's anti-violence pledge that he debuted tonight: what's the big deal?