Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
The recent ambush attack on two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., has sent shockwaves through the nation, highlighting the increasingly volatile atmosphere surrounding political dissent in America. This incident, while horrifying, is not entirely unexpected given the context of heightened tensions surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops under President Trump. The decision to send troops to quell protests and combat crime has faced significant backlash, with critics labeling it as a manifestation of authoritarianism, fascism, and political intimidation. Figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren have vocally opposed the military’s involvement in civilian matters, arguing that it risks turning the National Guard into a tool of political repression.
However, the rhetoric employed by some anti-Trump advocates may inadvertently contribute to a culture where violence is seen as an acceptable means of expressing dissent. The article draws attention to various instances of violence and threats against political figures, suggesting that incendiary language from both sides of the political spectrum fuels a dangerous narrative. For example, the glorification of individuals like Luigi Mangione, who allegedly killed a corporate executive, and the alarming reactions to threats against conservative figures illustrate a growing acceptance of violence as a legitimate response to political grievances. This trend raises critical questions about the impact of political discourse on societal behavior, particularly in a climate where social media amplifies extreme viewpoints.
The ambush on the National Guard troops serves as a grim reminder of the consequences of this escalating rhetoric. As investigations unfold, the identity of the alleged shooter—a man with Afghan roots—adds another layer to the discussion about the intersection of immigration, security, and domestic unrest. While the judicial system is designed to provide checks and balances against the misuse of military power, the article emphasizes the importance of recognizing that dissent, while a fundamental aspect of American democracy, must not devolve into vigilantism. As society grapples with these complex issues, it becomes increasingly vital for political leaders to reflect on the implications of their words and the potential for inciting violence in a deeply divided nation.
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)
