Encouraging Presidential Violence?

There has been an odd occurrence this week: at least two publications encouraging President Obama to euphemistically become violent with people who do not agree with him.

Roland S. Martin, CNN, Feb. 11, 2010: “Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ’em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.”

David Reilly, Bloomberg, Feb. 12, 2010: “President Barack Obama is starting to look like the second coming of Jimmy Carter. If he’s going to avoid that fate, the president had better take radical action — and fast…Obama needs to ditch his professorial, community-organizer mien and start cracking some heads.”

The former instance is much more glaring than the latter but that there has been a euphemistic call for Presidential violence twice in the last two days should not be overlooked. I’m not saying this is the first time this type of language has been used in politics, but it strikes a chord now particularly after we have been told time and again that Tea Partiers are all racist potential assassins.

Words matter, so what does this signify and what are the implications of speaking in this manner about Presidential politics? The left is angry that Obama has thus far been unable to remake America in the image he promised, and in the wake of what appears to be an Obamacare meltdown, that anger is bubbling over. Obamacare is the turning point at which the America we love slouches toward the socialist utopia the left craves. To have come so close must be infuriating.

During the summer we saw the tendency for real physical violence displayed by some on the left. Now we see the discourse, to at least a limited extent, becoming violent. Whether Mr Martin’s and Mr Reilly’s instigations are coincidental or the beginning of a trend remains to be seen, but it is at least worth noting this anger and desire for euphemistic violence from the left.