ShareThis Page
Editorial: Politics of war and words |

Editorial: Politics of war and words

| Wednesday, October 24, 2018 5:33 p.m
President Trump waves as he leaves the White House in Washington on Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2018, to attend a campaign rally in Mosinee, Wis.

Politics is not war, but it’s close.

It is planned in skirmishes and battles. It includes secret intelligence and espionage. There are sneak attacks and guerrilla tactics. It can be planned, as in the invasion of Normandy, but is frequently engaged because of a random, inadvertent shot across the bow.

It is not just the generals and the foot soldiers who participate in the battles. Some of the most dangerous attacks come from civilians aligned with a cause.

On Wednesday, several suspicious packages were sent to current or former political officials — Barack Obama, the Clintons. Former CIA Director John Brennan was sent one at CNN’s offices at Time Warner Center in New York City. Fortunately, those packages were intercepted.

The story rolled downhill quickly. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s package was sent back to the return address on all of them, that of congresswoman and former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters was sent one in California.

They came two days after major Democratic donor and billionaire George Soros received a similar delivery at his New York home, not far from where the Clintons live . We do not know who sent them.

The obvious threads that connect the recipients are their political affiliation and opposition to President Trump. The president has returned that antipathy.

It built from a not-so-cold war during Obama’s term in office and grew more heated as Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in 2016. Since Trump’s inauguration, it has worsened.

But with less than two weeks until the midterm elections, after the bitter shots of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and amidst international crises like the apparent murder of a Washington Post reporter by the Saudis and an advancing group of Central American asylum seekers to the south, it is ugly. It is hateful. It is dangerous.

Trump said after the Charlottesville white nationalist rally that ended in a dead protester and other injuries last year that there were “good people on both sides.”

In this war of words used as bullets and bundles of opinion — some mixed with fact and some with fantasy — lobbed like grenades, that phrase might be true. It is also undoubtedly true that there is fault on both sides.

Trump stood at a news conference Wednesday and decried the violence. He has much more often stood on a stage, sometimes literal and sometimes virtual, and encouraged or espoused hostility, frequently against the people who were mailed or delivered pipe bombs this week.

There has been more. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot last year. Waters has encouraged confrontation. A Washington, D.C., pizza parlor was the subject of a 2016 conspiracy theory that ended in gunfire. Fringe media melds rumor with ideology and little thought for the consequences.

We must all begin to see what we say as bearing responsibility. We cannot scream “murder” and then be surprised when someone is shot. We cannot blow a dog whistle and be shocked at a lynching.

Politics is not war. It should not be war.

But politics can be the easiest way to start one, and all of us must stand against that.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.