The attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in Tucson two weeks ago has raised new interest in how elected officials and political candidates use language in the attempt to gain votes.
Terms such as “vitriol” and “fiery rhetoric” have dominated the major media outlets in the discussion of what may have provoked the shooter, though as of this writing there is no indication of motive for the attack. Yet the blame game is in full force, even two weeks later.
At first the blame was laid on the usual political punching bag, Sarah Palin.
Maybe it is because she is such an easy target, her polarizing nature, or some other reason that has yet to be gleaned from any accurate source, but the focus in the discussion of political language has centered on the use of metaphors and the presumed responsibilities political figures, like Palin, have when they open their mouths.
“People should be conscious of the metaphors being used” as well as the specific words used, the images and the tone expressed in the metaphors, said Karen Adams, an ASU professor of English and linguistics.
Fox News has done its best to insulate their ratings darling Palin. Talking heads have come to her defense and branded alleged assassin Jared Loughner as a lone maniac and said that trying to connect Palin to the motives of Loughner is treading into the realm of the absurd.
Granted, if making the connection of the now-infamous crosshairs poster to the Tucson shooting is absurd, one must still ask the question of when do we, the American voters, start to hold our elected officials accountable for their use of language?
Is it when the metaphors being employed, like the crosshairs, can easily be taken out of context by the fringe elements in our society?
Maybe we should trust that people know the difference between a metaphor and a literal call to action.
“Everyone knows Palin wasn't urging violence. When she uses the language of hunting and shooting, she isn't speaking code to killers. She's dog whistling to Ted Nugent and other Second Amendment comrades,” wrote Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post, in a Jan. 23 column.
That’s wonderful if everyone who listened to Palin and other politicians had the wherewithal to understand metaphors and all of the varied meanings each one has. This isn’t including the intent with which they are used.
“No matter the intent, you can’t predict the total range of all the responses,” said Adams.
So what’s the solution? Do we call for all language to be toned down and sterilized in the inane hope of appealing to everyone and offending no one?
What about pundits like Glenn Beck? He has made a small fortune calling everyone he doesn’t agree with a Nazi.
When do “we, the people” finally hold our leadership to a higher standard of discourse instead of gorging ourselves on the usual verbal bloodbaths between the pundits and talking heads?
I have no idea, and that scares me.
Comments, concerns, complaints and nasty-grams can be sent to Tyler at tjones16@asu.edu
