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., highlighting the increasingly volatile atmosphere surrounding political dissent in America. The attack has raised alarms but, as some commentators suggest, it is not entirely surprising given the current socio-political climate. The deployment of National Guard troops by President Trump, initially aimed at quelling protests related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions and urban crime, has been met with fierce criticism. Detractors, including prominent figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren, have characterized this military presence as an authoritarian maneuver, invoking terms like “fascist” and “dictator” in their rhetoric. This framing has not only galvanized opposition against Trump but has also inadvertently fueled a narrative that legitimizes violence as a form of dissent.
The rhetoric surrounding the National Guard’s deployment has become a double-edged sword. While many on the left condemn the use of military forces in domestic affairs, their language may also incite a dangerous mindset among individuals who interpret dissent as a call to violence. Recent examples illustrate this troubling trend: figures like Luigi Mangione have been celebrated in some circles for violent acts against perceived enemies, while social media reactions to violent incidents involving right-wing figures have shown a disturbing acceptance of violence as a political tool. The ambush of the National Guard troops is a stark reminder that the incendiary language used in political discourse can have real-world consequences, as it fosters an environment where violence is viewed as a legitimate response to political grievances.
As the investigation into the Afghan national who allegedly shot the soldiers unfolds, it becomes crucial to reflect on the implications of our current political rhetoric. Critics of Trump’s tactics often highlight the need for accountability and legal recourse, as evidenced by a recent federal judge’s ruling deeming the National Guard’s presence in D.C. unlawful. However, the broader issue at hand is the responsibility of politicians and public figures to consider the potential fallout of their words in an era where dissent is increasingly conflated with violence. The distinction between healthy political opposition and vigilantism is essential for maintaining the integrity of democratic discourse. As we navigate these turbulent times, it is vital to advocate for dissent as a cornerstone of American democracy, while firmly rejecting any notion that violence is an acceptable means of expressing disagreement.
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)
