Destined to Dispute

On January 9^th, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a “Corner Congress” held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in Tucson, killing six people and seriously wounding many others, including the Congresswoman. In the rush to make sense of the tragedy, many in the media cited the relatively recent surge in violent political rhetoric as a major contributing factor. Sarah Palin’s now infamous “Crosshairs Map” became the chief piece of evidence that unrestrained rhetoric has become the norm in America.
Because of the increased cost of electoral politics and impact of new media, combative political rhetoric will not be changing any time soon, despite renewed calls for more civil discourse. Although extreme partisan divisions and mud-slinging have always been part of American politics, today’s politicians have special incentives to espouse extreme rhetoric.  Furthermore, the media, in its search for profits, has facilitated this change.
Coverage in the Media
Cable news networks, as well as blogs and other new media, have presented a new, specialized forum for extreme rhetoric. Professor Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, told the HPR that they are willing “to enable the most extreme elements on all sides of the political equation.” It is in the best interest of the 24-hour news networks, blogs, and pundits to attract people with exciting and attention-grabbing headlines. Moreover, he claimed that “the media creates an environment in which [uncivil discourse] is encouraged and rewarded.”  In a symbiotic relationship, the media profits by giving a venue to attention-seeking politicians who hope to benefit from their extreme rhetoric.
However, Marie Danziger, lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, believes that the media is not entirely guilty. She countered that “this is not the media’s problem. The very nature of politics works against the civility challenge.”
Regardless of whether the media can avoid promoting uncivil discourse, the reality is that competition for viewership and, ultimately, for profits, is incentive enough for news networks and other media to provide the most eye-catching sensational programming possible. Often, aggression and demonization of opponents fall into this category. Richard Parker, also a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School, told the HPR, “The media overshoots on almost every story it undertakes and it always looks for a highly emotive story.” The media may not be completely responsible, but it is most certainly guilty of facilitating the broadcast of extreme rhetoric to their viewers.
The Root of the Issue
The media would certainly have less sensational rhetoric to cover were it not for the pronouncements of the politicians themselves There have been several high-profile incidents of congressional incivility in recent memory, such as the infamous “You lie!” shouted by Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC). Historically, Congress has maintained several rules intended to keep discourse on the floor both professional and civil, but there are new concrete benefits to being aggressive and dramatic. Former Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), now a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, told the HPR, “Now politics is all money-driven. If you can call the President a liar…and make a lot of money off it, it’s well worth it.”  Politicians need attention and press, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve this, such as making inflammatory appearances on networks or in front of the CSPAN cameras.
The question remains whether one party is more responsible than the other for turning up the heat on our political climate. The majority often accuses the minority of being unwilling to participate in crafting legislation, and the minority, for their part, complains of being shut out of the process.  Danziger points out that “The opposition party is always more aggressive. Republicans are attackers. Their ultimate goal is to win the next presidential election.” If the 2010 midterm elections are any hint of what is to come, then neither side appears to be willing to back down any time soon.
While feeding violent rhetoric to constituents may be objectionable, it is certainly an effective method to rally the base and reach supporters. Because of this pressure, the so-called “one-minutes,” during which members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can take the floor to speak their mind, have become an opportunity to score partisan points by saying a few shocking words in front of the cameras.  Stupak argued, “After those one-minutes, everyone is so jacked up…I think we should get rid of [them]…You’re always going to have this partisan bitterness.”
Moving forward
After the tragedy in Arizona, many have called for a change in the way we discuss and conduct politics. Others remain pessimistic about the prospects of such a shift. Parker believes that “an assassination attempt invites the press to generalize about American character and politics. There’s nothing unexpected in what’s happened.” It is likely that American political rhetoric will not change dramatically any time soon.
Despite the promises of many public figures to adopt a more respectful tone, Parker asserted that “we’ll eventually go back to some version of what we’ve had in the last few months.” With a campaign season approaching, the discourse will inevitably intensify. It is clear, though, that while it may be inaccurate to characterize the tone of the past two years as “politics as usual,” partisan feuds and opposition will continue to exist. The state of our dialogue has less to do with specific politicians today than with structures and larger trends in campaign spending and new media.  Perhaps certain inflammatory voices have aggravated a trend already coming about.  As Parker analogized, “The ocean always makes waves but sometimes an earthquake comes along and makes the waves larger.” However, if we hope to honor those who lost their lives in Arizona, then politicians, media, protestors, and regular citizens must all at least make the effort to moderate their rhetoric. Only when Americans are willing to sacrifice sensationalism for respect will we see a change in our national discourse.