After the Jan. 6 riots, I heard politicians use one breath to condemn Donald Trump for telling his mob to “fight like hell,” then use their next breath to shout, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” The intellectual dishonesty was unsettling and the violent rhetoric was frightening. I vowed then that I would never again vote for candidates who used violent rhetoric.
But every politician called for fighting. If I kept my vow I could not vote. I began talking with politicians one at a time, urging them to abandon violent rhetoric. A few listened and said they would watch their language. Most disagreed with me. Some explained at length that we are “in a war.” One called me a coward.
I came to understand that fighting means something different to them than to me. I was a soldier during the Vietnam War. My country taught me that fighting meant killing enemy soldiers. I learned that. I did it. It was violent.
But to them fighting is not violent. They sincerely believe that attending Zoom meetings, knocking on doors, writing texts and emails, giving speeches, talking on the phone, and arguing under Robert’s Rules of Order are fighting. They should understand, however, there are those rare listeners who, upon hearing an authority figure urge them to fight, will take up arms.
I understand screaming “Fight!” is a good way for politicians to mobilize their base. And it must make them feel heroic, like Paul Revere riding through the night calling the citizens to arms. But what they do and what they ask can more accurately be described by the words work, canvass, telephone, debate, email, advocate, propose, text, support, oppose or promise. Using these and other nonviolent and more accurate words will make their rhetoric less likely to dispatch armed warriors on a mission to kill.
George Sumner, Salt Lake City
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible