In defense of vitriol

Slate's Jack Shafer flips the argument on its head. He argues that "our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification — and, yes, violent imagery — is a good thing."

Shafer writes:

The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics.

Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power.

Point taken. But Shafer is being selective with history and naïve about the power of words. Lest we forget, America has already endured a time when hateful, incendiary rhetoric provided the kindling if not the fuse for “genuine violence.” The year was 1861. The “scuffle” was the Civil War. No one is calling for censorship or the muffling of spirited debate. I, too, would entrust no elite with such a portfolio. But Shafer’s idealism is wrongheaded. History has repeatedly shown the tragic consequences of underestimating the power of violent speech. There must be a democratic middle ground for the sake of comity and our national survival. Not seeking it only invites disaster.