Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
In a shocking incident that underscores the growing tensions in American society, two National Guard troops were ambushed in Washington D.C., prompting a wave of concern and outrage. This attack, while horrifying, is not entirely unexpected given the political climate surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops in recent years. President Trump’s controversial decision to send National Guard members into cities to address protests related to immigration enforcement and crime has drawn sharp criticism from various political figures, particularly those on the left. Accusations of authoritarianism and the militarization of law enforcement have become common refrains, with politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren warning against the military being used as a tool for political intimidation.
The rhetoric surrounding these deployments often fuels a dangerous narrative, one that can incite violence among fringe groups. Figures such as Luigi Mangione, who gained notoriety for allegedly killing a healthcare CEO, exemplify how some individuals interpret political dissent as a justification for violent action. This environment of heightened animosity has been exacerbated by social media, where extremist sentiments have moved from the shadows into the mainstream. The ambush of the National Guard troops may be viewed as part of a disturbing trend where incendiary language from political leaders, regardless of their affiliation, can translate into real-world violence. The recent attack serves as a reminder that while dissent is a cornerstone of American democracy, the line between peaceful protest and violent acts is becoming increasingly blurred.
As the investigation into the identity and motives of the alleged shooter unfolds, it is vital for political leaders to reflect on their language and the implications it may have on public behavior. While there are legitimate concerns regarding the deployment of National Guard troops, as evidenced by a recent federal court ruling deeming such actions unlawful, it is crucial for public discourse to remain civil and constructive. The current political climate, characterized by divisive rhetoric, can lead to dangerous outcomes if not addressed. Acknowledging the importance of dissent while condemning violence is essential for maintaining a healthy democratic society. As we navigate these turbulent times, it is imperative that we strive for dialogue and understanding rather than allowing anger and hostility to dictate our actions.
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)
