Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
The ambush attack on two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., has sparked outrage and horror, yet it is a reflection of a troubling societal trend that has emerged in recent years. The incident underscores the growing polarization in American political discourse, particularly surrounding the deployment of National Guard troops by President Trump. Initially dispatched to quell protests and combat rising crime in major cities, the involvement of the National Guard has been met with fierce criticism from many on the left. Figures such as Senator Elizabeth Warren have condemned the use of military forces as a political tool, labeling it as part of an authoritarian agenda. This pushback, while rooted in legitimate concerns about the militarization of domestic issues, has also contributed to a climate where dissent is increasingly equated with violence.
The rhetoric surrounding these deployments has not only intensified political divisions but has also emboldened individuals who view violence as an acceptable response to political grievances. The article highlights disturbing examples, such as the glorification of violent acts against public figures and the normalization of threats in political discourse. The ambush of the National Guard troops, allegedly carried out by an Afghan national, can be seen as part of this alarming trend, where incendiary language and the portrayal of dissent as a legitimate outlet for anger lead to real-world consequences. The narrative that violence “sends a message” is gaining traction, raising concerns about the implications for public safety and the rule of law.
As America grapples with these issues, it is essential to recognize that while dissent is a fundamental part of democracy, it must be expressed through peaceful means rather than through violence or vigilantism. The recent attack serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers of a divided society, where political rhetoric can incite real harm. As the legal battles over the National Guard’s deployment continue, it is crucial for politicians and public figures to be mindful of their words and the impact they can have on an increasingly volatile public discourse. The system of checks and balances that defines American democracy must be upheld, ensuring that dissent remains a tool for change rather than a catalyst for 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)
Eric
Eric is a seasoned journalist covering General news.
