Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
In a harrowing incident on Wednesday, two National Guard troops were ambushed in Washington, D.C., an event that has sparked outrage and concern across the nation. While the attack is undeniably shocking, it is also seen by some as a troubling consequence of the political climate fostered by the rhetoric surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops under President Trump. This deployment, initially intended to address protests related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions and crime in urban areas, has faced significant backlash, with critics labeling it as an authoritarian move reminiscent of fascism. Prominent figures, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have voiced their opposition, arguing that using the military as a political tool undermines democratic values and can incite violence.
The ambush raises critical questions about the growing normalization of violent rhetoric in American political discourse. The article highlights how incendiary language from both sides of the political spectrum can lead to dangerous outcomes, as individuals may interpret calls for dissent as justifications for violence. For example, the glorification of figures like Luigi Mangione, who allegedly killed a healthcare CEO, reflects a disturbing trend where violence is seen as a legitimate response to political grievances. The author draws parallels between the violent acts incited by rhetoric from both ends of the political spectrum, urging a reconsideration of how dissent is expressed in a democracy. While dissent is a cornerstone of American freedom, the line between protest and vigilantism is becoming increasingly blurred, with social media amplifying extremist views and fostering a culture where violence is celebrated rather than condemned.
The recent ambush serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of a polarized political environment. As discussions around the legality and morality of deploying National Guard troops continue, it is essential for politicians and citizens alike to recognize the impact of their words. With a federal judge recently ruling the deployment unlawful, the situation remains fluid, but the call for a more civil discourse is urgent. The article concludes by emphasizing that while dissent is a fundamental aspect of American democracy, it must be expressed responsibly, without resorting to violence or intimidation, to preserve the integrity of the nation’s democratic values.
The ambush attack on two National Guard troops in D.C. Wednesday is horrifying. But it is not surprising.
President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in a bid to quell protests over ICE arrests and/or fight crime in major cities has been a flashpoint since the first boots hit the ground. And political pushback against Trump’s move featured the favorite buzzwords of the left: fascist, dictator, authoritarian.
The National Guard were not just men and women serving our country, they were part of the hated Trump “regime.”
When the Guard was deployed in LA this summer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a September hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, “We cannot let the military become a political weapon to intimidate our communities.”
She was hardly alone in depicting the Guard’s deployment as part and parcel of part of the president’s “fascist” machinations.
What she and so many of the anti-Trumpers miss time and again is that those same soundbites that invigorate the progressive base are also picked up by a growing number of people for whom dissent means violence.
Luigi Mangione has become a folk anti-hero for the alleged killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year. Warren condemned the shooting, but in an interview with the Huffington Post, said, “Violence is never the answer. But people can only be pushed so far.”
When then-presidential candidate Trump was shot during a campaign even last year, a staffer for a Democratic Rep. posted: “I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time ooops that wasn’t me talking.”
Charlie Kirk’s public assassination in September was met with nauseating social media displays expressing happiness over his killing.
The trolls who once lived in the cellars of social discourse are now in the light, spreading conspiracy theories and espousing violence as a legitimate response to whatever person or institution they have a problem with.
More will be uncovered about the Afghan national who allegedly shot the two National Guard troops in DC. But we know that he is part of a disturbing trend, fueled by incendiary rhetoric, that violence “sends a message” and is a legitimate outlet for anger.
Those who credit Trump’s rhetoric on Jan. 6, 2021 with inciting the crowd into the mob that breached the Capitol can’t dismiss the us-versus-them speech emanating from liberals.
You can certainly be against Trump deploying the National Guard around the country — that’s what lawsuits are for. A federal judge ordered an end to the National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C., last week, declaring that the use of troops was “unlawful.” The troops remain while Trump can appeal.
We have a great system of checks and balances in our democracy, it’s one of the things that sets us apart from fascist dictatorships.
Politicians who use opposition to the Trump Administration as opportunity to score re-election points via verbal bomb-throwing should pay attention to the devolving social media landscape.
Dissent is American. Vigilantism is not.
Editorial cartoon by Gary Varvel (Creators Syndicate)
