Linking Uncivil Rhetoric With Violent Acts

Political scientists have long wondered if violent political speech can be linked to political violence, a question given urgency in the wake of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

By Emily Badger
Miller-McCune

Academics Link Violent Rhetoric With Violent Acts

In the wake of Saturday's attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, partisans have been quick to point fingers.

Partisans have been quick in the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, Ariz., to point fingers, and to point fingers at pointed fingers, alternately deploring and defending the heated political rhetoric that somehow seems tied — in perception if not reality — to the attempted assassination of a U.S. congresswoman.

Sarah Palin is to blame. Or maybe Sharron Angle is. Or it’s the president himself, who must deeply regret now his intemperate pledge to “bring a gun” to the opponent’s “knife fight.”

When the blame subsides, we’ll be left with a national discussion about where most of us draw the line between what’s civil in politics and what’s not, and what the consequences are of language that goes beyond that boundary. Does political rhetoric really matter — to average citizens, for our democracy, in the minds of unstable outliers?

(More here.)