Editorial: National Guard ambush latest sign of incendiary politics
In a shocking incident, two National Guard troops were ambushed in Washington, D.C., a stark reminder of the growing tensions surrounding the deployment of military personnel in domestic settings. This attack, while horrifying, is not entirely unexpected given the heated political climate that has surrounded the National Guard’s presence in cities across the United States, particularly under the Trump administration. President Trump’s controversial decision to deploy National Guard troops aimed at addressing protests related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and urban crime has drawn fierce criticism from various political figures. Prominent Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have been vocal about their concerns, labeling the use of the National Guard as a political weapon and likening it to authoritarian tactics. This rhetoric, however, has inadvertently contributed to a broader culture where dissent is increasingly equated with violence.
The ambush on the National Guard troops underscores a disturbing trend where political rhetoric has the potential to incite real-world violence. Figures like Luigi Mangione, who gained notoriety for allegedly killing a healthcare CEO, and various social media reactions to violent incidents against conservative figures highlight a shift in how political disagreements are expressed. The social media landscape has become a breeding ground for extreme sentiments, where calls for violence are often masked as legitimate expressions of anger. This environment has raised alarms about the normalization of violence as a response to political dissent, prompting a need for reflection among politicians and the public alike. While the judicial system is equipped to handle disputes over military deployments, the underlying societal issues necessitate a more profound examination of how political discourse can influence individual actions.
Moreover, the ambush serves as a critical reminder of the importance of maintaining a distinction between dissent and vigilantism in a democratic society. The checks and balances that characterize American governance are designed to prevent the descent into chaos, yet the current political climate poses risks that could undermine these principles. As the investigation into the ambush continues, it is crucial for leaders across the political spectrum to recognize the potential consequences of their words and actions. In a time when division is rampant, fostering constructive dialogue and promoting peaceful dissent is essential to preserving the fabric of democracy and ensuring that political disagreements do not escalate into 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)
