Two functions are served by the use of violent political rhetoric:
- it serves to intimidate the political opposition and
- political followers feel "empowered" when they verbally assault "the enemy".
Defenders of violent rhetoric point to the fact that they are exercising their right to "free speech", and are not directly responsible for any acts of violence. They also say that there is no demonstrable indirect connection between their violent rhetoric and political violence (and to assert such a connection is a "blood libel"!)..
Their defense is dishonest in that it fails to address the fact that the primary function of violent rhetoric is intimidation. If the public were to believe that violent rhetoric truly has no relation to actual violence, they would not be intimidated. When a six year old threatens to punch you, it is amusing; when an angry constituent threatens to burn down your house, you are intimidated.
Are the right wing asking us to accept that their violent rhetoric has some goal other than political intimidation and violence. We must not turn away from the fact that the use of violent rhetoric by public figures is intended to intimidate. Our belief that we can expect actual violence to follow is just common sense; that is how intimidation works, isn’t it?