This is a long clip, but I urge you to watch Jon's heartfelt commentary about the AZ massacre over the weekend. The Daily Show, known more for it's tongue-in-cheek approach to news and politics eloquently made the point so many of us had been trying to make.
In a hail of gunfire lives were shattered because what should have been a chasm between hyperbole and reality was crossed in a matter of seconds. It was another brutal example of how easy it is to blur the line between literal, logical thought and hyperbolic propaganda, and the subsequent devastating results that follow.
Thanks to the sensationalistic undertone of our media and our politics that chasm has become a line that is unthinkably too thin.
We, as a nation, should find that shocking and unacceptable.
The blood of true patriots was spilled in an afternoon and yet... there have been far too many people who have traded genuine horror in a knee-jerk defense that would rather be right than compassionate - or accountable.
This applies to both sides of the aisle.
By our refusal to say enough's enough, we continue to blur the evaporating line between the actions of the insane and those of the emotionally grounded.
It just further proves that the political environment in this country is toxic. When you get to the point that a slain child is more reason to spout your own hateful rhetoric that keeps two ideologies in enemy camps, we've *all* crossed that critical line.
Something like this demands that we all see how far we've stepped over to the other side. Since it's the only thing we have the power to fix anyway, it's critical to see how much we contributed to the problem that allowed us to get this far.
Let's break it down.
"Hyperbole is a figure of speech that uses an exaggerated or extravagant statement to create a strong emotional response. As a figure of speech it is not intended to be taken literally."
We've all used it because it's an effective tool.
When Sarah Palin and her team created the "bullseye" map, they did so using a strong graphic that was meant to stir a certain emotion... one of battle. This has become an acceptable narrative in politics, one that all sides use to varying degrees. So it probably made a lot of sense to the Palin crew to pick an easily recognizable symbol that in one powerful visual figuratively labeled those politicians as "enemies" that need to be "taken out."
Did Sarah Palin truly mean for anyone to go on a shooting rampage? Of course not. That's what makes this hyperbolic.
It was used figuratively - and effectively - to stir a strong emotion.
The problem is the violent tone of this hyperbole, which is making it harder to distinguish those who have a legitimate concern for their country and fringe wingnuts suffering from overt paranoia.
Encouraging this destructive tone can turn a figuratively loaded gun into a literal one... and that's just too dangerous to ignore.
Strong emotions are out there waiting to be stirred, which is what makes the use of this kind of propaganda so questionable. There are those who will glom onto ANY militant message because they are willing to take their anger a step forward. They are likely waiting for any excuse to make that all right.
There were those who took their discord with Congresswoman Giffords to a more literal level as she showed support for Health Care Reform, a policy that opponents have used outrageous hyperbole repeatedly to try and discredit. These angry individuals then used their opposition with her politics as justification to vandalize her office, call in death threats ... and one very disturbed individual tried to end her life.
Whether the actions of Palin and the actions of the perpetrators were connected we cannot say with any degree of authority.
BUT...
The line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality is much easier to cross when you have unapologetic rhetoric stirring up the emotions of an already angry mob.
There's only so many times you can poke an animal before it bites back.
When I was about 12 or so my brother in law got a dog that was part wolf. He got him as a puppy and it was a sweet and gentle animal that never showed aggression, even around my small nieces and nephews.
Since they didn't have a fenced backyard for the dog, appropriately named Wolf, he was restrained on a chain in the front yard of their house, which sat directly across the street from my house.
I ended up bearing frustrated witness as the neighborhood children gleefully tormented this dog who could not go beyond the chain's reach, which was initially to try and get away from them. I tried to stop them, my brother in law tried to stop them, but these children got something out of relentlessly teasing this poor dog.
Days grew into weeks, weeks grew into months and eventually Wolf became understandably angry from being constantly provoked.
They would taunt Wolf until he ran to the extent of his chain - this time *toward* them. There he'd bark ferociously and bare his teeth, but the collar literally choked him as he strained for the tormentors he never could quite reach.
The children thought this was great fun.
Until the day the chain broke.
That day all four or five of them bolted over to my house with Wolf hot on their trail. One little girl wasn't fast enough to make it beyond the porch, and she ended up with a horrible gash on her leg where Wolf tore into her.
At that point the neighborhood, who had blissfully ignored the actions of these children, decided Wolf had to be destroyed.
No one cared to teach the children how cruel their behavior was, they just wanted to punish an animal who had been pushed beyond his natural limits. Granted there was plenty of blame to go around at that point, but none of that could undo the damage that was done to that little girl's leg.
All we could do was learn from it. And what I learned is there is only so many times you can provoke something to anger for your own amusement before there are serious consequences you can't take back.
Before Obama was elected president, the NRA launched a multi-million dollar campaign against him that stirred up their base to believe he would be "the most anti-gun president ever."
Powerful words like "tyranny" and "revolution" were tossed around to emphasize their hyperbolic point which, incidentally, was a big fat lie.
Either way, the wolf was stirred.
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2009, 23-year-old Richard Polawski killed three police officers because he feared that Obama was going to take his guns away.
The line between the hyperbole of the NRA and reality of dead police officers was crossed, with dire consequences nobody could take back.
On several different notable occasions, radio personalities and political candidates engaged in (hopefully) hyperbolic talk about saving ammunition for Obama, to resist the government in a bloodbath; a second revolution fully supported by the "second amendment right" for those citizens to oppress a "tyrannical" government...
And you get this:
And this...
And this...
And this.
It's frighteningly obvious there are those who are willing to take that next, short step over from violent hyperbole to bloody reality.
They've been stirred up by those with national influence not to "retreat" but to "RELOAD."
The anger is palpable. The hostility is stifling. And no one is immune from the vitriol.. not even an innocent child whose life ended needlessly one Saturday afternoon.
Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for the actions of Jared Loughner, who went on a crazed killing spree for possibly no other reason than he is almost unquestionably mentally ill.
But Sarah Palin IS responsible for the rhetoric she purposely chooses for her own gain. She blatantly ignores those who would act on her unapologetic use of hyperbole simply because it benefits her so well to use it. It's unethical and irresponsible, and it would be equally unethical and irresponsible of all of us not to call her on it.
Her words, which she can take back, have an effect on those fringe personalities who take figurative language seriously enough they might commit actions which can't be taken back.
John McCain was able to recognize this angry momentum during the election, where he at least tried to tone back the hateful, paranoid rhetoric that his VP candidate allowed to run unchecked... and even stoked.
For which he was promptly booed by his own supporters.
The dog is at the end of its chain, folks.
There is a powerful undertone in our current political atmosphere we would be ill-advised to dismiss as "business as usual." It is painfully and horrifying obvious that the angry, figurative hyperbole is sinking into the collective psyche of a fringe few who would take it too far.
As Saturday proved, it only takes one step to cross the line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality.
All we can do now is learn from it. We should absolutely take pause to see how we can take responsibility for our own message. Using this dangerous hyperbolic language in a highly charged atmosphere must be called into question when the emotionally driven response yields such devastating consequences.
Aren't we just are responsible for watching a fire burn, even if we didn't start it?
And why are we so blithely excusing those who toss more gasoline into it for their own political gain?
Whether we cross the line between hyperbole and reality or look the other way when someone else does, these are actions that we can't take back. And NONE of us are immune to being caught in the crossfire that is shamefully all too literal.
Where will you be the next time someone crosses this critical line? At a museum with your kids? In church on Sunday morning?
Or just picking up a few groceries at the local grocery store?
The line is growing thinner by the day, with no help from those with national influence. That's why it's up to us to choose a side.
Tune in this Saturday, January 15 between 11am CST and 1pm CST, where I hope to continue this discussion further with Hal Sparks on the Hal Sparks Radio Program.
This is not an indictment of blame... it is a discussion of reflection worth having. For all of us.
"It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble the way we talk to each other on TV." - Jon Stewart
0 comments:
Post a Comment