Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
In a shocking incident on Wednesday, two National Guard troops were ambushed in Washington D.C., an event that has sparked outrage and concern across the nation. This attack, while horrifying, is viewed by some as a predictable outcome of the escalating political tensions surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops under President Trump. Since their initial deployment to manage protests against ICE arrests and to combat crime in major cities, the National Guard has become a focal point for criticism from various political factions. Figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren have labeled this military action as a tool for authoritarianism, warning against the military being used as a political weapon. The rhetoric surrounding these deployments has intensified, with many on the left using charged language to frame the situation, which may inadvertently contribute to a climate where dissent is equated with violence.
The ambush is emblematic of a broader trend where political dissent is increasingly met with hostility and aggression. The article highlights instances of violence that have been celebrated or downplayed in the political discourse, such as the alleged killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the threats made against public figures like Charlie Kirk. This troubling shift in societal attitudes reflects a growing acceptance of violence as a legitimate form of protest, which is fueled by incendiary rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum. The ambush of the National Guard troops serves as a stark reminder that while dissent is a core American value, the normalization of violence undermines the very fabric of democracy. As the nation grapples with these events, it is crucial for political leaders to recognize the potential consequences of their words and to foster a dialogue that prioritizes peaceful dissent over vigilantism.
As investigations continue into the motives of the Afghan national accused of the attack, it becomes clear that the implications of this incident extend beyond the immediate tragedy. The incident underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of the political discourse that has permeated American society. The recent federal ruling that deemed the National Guard’s presence in D.C. unlawful adds another layer to this complex situation, highlighting the checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy. Ultimately, as the nation reflects on this ambush, it must confront the reality that while political opposition is vital, the path to change must remain rooted in peaceful dialogue, not violence.
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)
