Washington’s complicity in Charlottsville?

While the outrageous violence in Charlottsville, VA is inexcusable, any reasonable person who looks seriously at Washington’s political antics in 2017 must say that our government, the rhetorical split between the Democrats and Republicans, has contributed substantially to what happened in Charlottsville.  In spite of the Republicans attempts to administer government in good faith, they have been met with aggressive obstruction, deliberate attempts to see that our leaders are not able to conduct the usual affairs expected of them.  The criminal destruction witnessed in Charlottsville appears to be little different from that witnessed in Washington, except for the violence.  Is this obstruction any different from that witnessed every day in our nation’s capitol?

The term complicity refers deliberately to support of a criminal act, an act which may be as little as remaining silent in the face of  violence.  President Trump’s condemnation of the death and destruction in Charlottsville referred to “hatred” in all its forms.  Because he failed to include in “hatred” specific mention of the KKK, white supremacists, terrorists, and other racist types, he was roundly criticized by a black democratic representative.  This is as much a form of hatred as those who commit the violence.

The question that must follow is “how is the Democratic obstruction of every proposal in Washington” not an act of hatred?  We have seen a Republican congressman shot by a deranged liberal individual with a gun.  Was this not an act of hatred?  Was this heinous act encouraged by those in Washington whose conduct is on display every day, an opposition to anything and everything the Republicans try to do.  Is this not an overt act based upon hatred, the same kind of hatred that is expressed in Charlottsville?

On the surface, the façade in Washington is missing the element of violence, but is there a difference?  Because violent assault is missing from the rhetoric, is the hatred any less?  At some point, one must admit that “rhetoric” crosses the line, and is no longer “rhetoric”.  The distinction between content and form may miss the impact, that some rhetoric is hateful, and it may linger in its hateful form as “rhetoric” forever.  To call hate “rhetoric” is to call a wolf a sheep, and ignore the impact of its message.  It seems to be clear that the skin heads, supremacists, clans, racists, bigots, and terrorists are able to receive the message directly from Washington that it is OK to oppose whatever is on the Republicans’ agenda.  The Democrats are doing it quite successfully, so why not the anarchists and terrorists.

Do we have one country any more?  Or are we simply two countries that have lost the ability to pull together toward a common goal.  Opposition for its own sake migrates from a “friendly opposition” to one based upon hatred, where any and all techniques may be applied.  Congress is no longer a shining example on the hill.  It is radiating a form of hatred to all who would like to see this country fail.

Comments are closed.