False Equivalants

False equivalency is the rhetorical battleground of the moment -- the concept that both the right and the left are guilty of utilizing violent, anti-establishment language in political discourse, but that the left is less likely to transition from words to action. The republicans have the guns; the democrats don't. This view tends to highlight militants on the right like Timothy McVeigh, but overlooks militants on the left like the SLA and the Weather Underground.

Here in Seattle, resentment and distrust of law enforcement are on the rise in connection with shooting death of John T. Williams, a Native American folk-artists fatally shot by SPD in August 2010. (Cops = Murderers) The city has also played host to numerous demonstrations regarding the FBI's investigation of peace activists in recent months (Build a Wall of Resistance).

Can the possibility that this rhetoric could lead to violence against police officers be discounted? The moment a police officer is killed in the course of a routine traffic stop, this argument will be made by someone in politics or the media. Activists on the left should be as equally motivated as those on the right to consider the consequences of their rhetoric in light of the Tuscon shootings.

The left is also not immune to a little after-the-fact spin, either -- as this pamphlet demonstrates: The Green Scare.

"The acts of 'terrorism' that these defendants have admitted to would be more actually described as simple acts of sabotage. These were attacks against property, never people. Out of the deepest concern for life, the individuals involved took the greatest care to ensure that no people were harmed."

Obviously, these folks are unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences. Regardless of whether or not people were targeted, these methods share a common element with more conventional definitions of terrorism -- they both attempt to shift public opinion through the coercive force of fear. "When reasoned argument fails, it's time to light something on fire" is the message here. It's this mentality that produced the stricter sentences in these cases.