Aggressive political rhetoric: Guns don't kill people...

...politicians do. Or at least that's what they're arguing about over in the U.S. at the moment. After the attempted assassination of American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, leaving Giffords herself in a critical condition and six others dead, a debate has started over whether increasingly vitriolic political rhetoric, coupled with increased use of military imagery in political campaigning, has either directly provoked the shooting or helped foster an atmosphere where such violent acts are more likely to occur (note that the cross hairs on the Palin website only appear on a map to show targeted constituencies, and NOT on pictures of the members of Congress themselves).
Quite rightly, those accused of such agressive campaigning are pointing out that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a lone, mentally unstable perpetrator. But to believe that this renders them blameless is to miss the point. As American commentator Keith Olbermann eloquently argues, the tone as well as the content of political debate influences those that witness it, and is one of the factors in creating an environment where the use of violent, often gun-related, imagery has not been questioned or criticised - until now. Politicians across the world are keen to emphasise their own importance when it suits them, but when an incident such as the shootings in Tucson occurs, they are very quick to deny that they have any influence over anything, and that if they are using aggressive rhetoric, they are merely reflecting society's morals rather than influencing them. This abrogation of responsibility is unworthy of anyone who desires to lead. Because, believe it or not, politicians do influence society, and not just through the laws they pass when in government. If a politician uses military, or violent, or gun-related imagery in their language, then it helps legitimise such imagery, thus taking us towards a society where violence is seen more and more as a potential and justified response to any given situation. After all, if a politician is using violent rhetoric, is must be all right, mustn't it?

And we in England can't consider ourselves immune from this problem, though here it appears to be more likely to be left-wing organisations (if not the mainstream political parties) that use the imagery of conflict in their propaganda. It was a Facebook post by (the mostly admirable) Billy Bragg that led me to the article by Keith Olbermann cited above, but it was the same Billy Bragg who posited that the 21 Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the government motion to remove the cap on tuition fees might not have done so  "had it not all kicked off at Millbank" - his condemnation was reserved for the throwing of a fire exinguisher off the roof, but not for the rest of the violent disorder that took place.

So politicians and political activists should take heed - as I was taught when I was young, if you have to resort to violence, then you've lost the argument.