What concerns me, apart from the obvious (i.e. that moving to Norway apparently made me MORE rather than LESS likely to suffer violence for my political beliefs), is that people attending political rallies are usually already amped up on emotions and feeling confrontational toward political foes, and that millions have lost their jobs, homes and/or life savings while tens of millions wonder if they're next. That's not just a crowded theater, it's a theater crowded with people who smell smoke and see flickering lights; even the whisper of "fire" could start the stampede. I realize that it's impossible to avoid all phraseology that CAN be construed violently, but the danger to public safety when a figurative phrase is taken literally makes it imperative to be clear that a violent metaphor is ONLY a metaphor, and to restrain the violence of ones imagery as much as possible to avoid tragic misunderstandings. Hoffa didn't even try; it almost seemed like he was deliberately using violent imagery, and given events of the past year that seems recklessly irresponsible. As I'm sure you recall, just next door to MI people threatened to bomb the offices of legislators who voted for Scott Walkers bill busting public unions, so for Hoffa to show up now telling his "army" to wage "war" and "take the SOBs out" is alarming however I feel about public or any other unions.


I don't hate Hoffa or Perry, and my feelings about them have little bearing on how I feel about their comments. I'm pretty supportive of private industry unions; can even see valid reasons for closed shops--that still doesn't excuse someone who feels the same way telling me or any other POLITICAL allies to wage war and take out political opponents simply because he slips in a passing mention of the ballot box every ten minutes or so. I don't think he or Perry INTENDED violence, but do think they intended suggestively violent rhetoric to incite people to POLITICAL action without stopping to consider that by using such strongly violent rhetoric they could instead incite their followers to PHYSICAL, violent, action. If that's the case they aren't bright enough to be trusted with leadership of anything, but there's also the more alarming possibility that they recognized the risk and left their comments vague enough (in Perrys case) or threw in a few qualifying disclaimers (in Hoffas) to give themselves cover in case someone did take them literally. If that's the case they aren't responsible enough to be trusted with leadership of anything.

It's one thing to try to engage an audience emotionally and thereby provoke a response; that's been recognized as a valid rhetorical principle since the Greeks first formalized the discipline in the course of inventing democracy. However, when the language used is consciously, deliberately and extremely violent we have to acknowledge that greatly hightens the risk that we've crossed the line from confrontational language inciting political action to literally combative language inciting violent action. Telling a crowd of angry anxious supporters that "we must slaughter our foes, burn their houses and eat their children!" doesn't become innocuous just because we whisper "metaphorically, at the polls, of course" at the end. The only thing worse than doing that and crying crocodile tears when a supporter suits deeds to ones words is playing martyr when called on it in the wake of a tragedy one helped create.