Conservative Discourse and Arizona

Hold on tight, it’s starting. Some attack, others defend; that’s politics. The problem is that if we don’t know how to draw distinctions, we become personally involved, and we fail to understand what is going on. On one side, they say that the attack on Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was practically caused by an incendiary ultraconservative discourse that has been gaining strength for months and that creates an environment where certain volatile citizens may feel moved to commit crimes of this type. In other words, they establish a direct link between the violent rhetoric and the attack. On the other side, there is no connection whatsoever. They remove compromising language from the Internet and say that one thing has nothing to do with the other. We are caught in the middle, confused and worried, not knowing to what extent aggressive discourse and murder are related.

The press notes that this is not the first time in the history of the U.S. that an inflammatory conservative discourse has gained strength. What is new this time is the ability of this type of language to spread through social networks and the Internet. This makes the rhetoric much more effective and allows it to reach new segments of the population.

However, notwithstanding any actual impact of this type of discourse on the shooter or his potential organization, what is notable is that in the conservative sector there is now an immediate attempt to eliminate phrases or websites in an attempt to show that they have nothing to do with this type of attack. It would seem that they are seeking to eliminate, as soon as possible, the “evidence” of having been instigators of the crime. That is why in this game, which is intertwined with the quest for political power, it is necessary to be precise.

In this and other venues we have argued, in effect, the importance of discourse. Reality is not something that is planned in advance; it is a structure that is created socially each day. The language that we use represents our way of understanding this construction and, at the same time, contributes to the building of that reality. That is why we say a peaceful discourse engenders peace and a violent discourse creates violence. There is no doubt about this. But it is a long-term idea. In other words, the terror that erupted in Arizona, or what we saw when a student killed 20 of his classmates, is not an automatic product of recent political conflicts between conservatives and liberals in the United States. It is, however, the result of an environment that justifies aggression, which has been in place for decades, in which television programs, video games, movies and even superheroes are violent and justify combat as “justice”. This is a discourse that portrays the United States as an impassioned pursuer of its manifest destiny, which is to fight for “liberty,” “civilization” and “democracy” from Vietnam and Cuba to Iraq and Afghanistan, and which justifies the sale of arms to ordinary citizens as “legitimate self-defense”. Look, if we really want to see the relation between discourse and violence, it is there. But when it comes to this rhetoric, over the long term, the Democrats are also to blame. Thus, in its complexity, recent rhetorical attacks by the tea party against liberals can be seen as a contributing factor but not a determining one in the recent incident.

The lamentable attack is turned into simply one more battle in the real war: the conflict that for decades, the most conservative sectors have been waging against the liberals and the defense that the liberals put up. And vice versa. This goes beyond the boundaries of the event itself. Now the victim is not only presented as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords but her activism in favor of immigrant rights and her liberal values. The perpetrator is not a young man of 22 but the inflammatory conservative discourse that makes this type of incident possible.

From the White House to the most recondite spaces of the tea party, some will use the incident to advance their agenda, focusing their attention on whatever is close at hand: the next bill, poll or election. The good news is that in the midst of the war not everyone is fooled. Peace is constructed, surely, through discourse, among other factors. But it is a long-term project, far off in the distance.