My Use of Violent Imagery

The recent discussion of the use of violent imagery in political talk caused me to take a look at my own use of violent imagery, and to consider what is wrong about the use of such imagery, especially with respect to government ethics.

A search for "kill" on my blog led me mostly to quotations from government officials (including Tom DeLay's "We don't like to deal with people who are trying to kill the revolution. We know who they are."). But I did use the word metaphorically with respect to killing a complaint, ethics reform proposals, and the champagne market in Baton Rouge (due to a $50 gift limit). All other uses of the word were literal.

My sole metaphorical use of the word "murder" (actually a simile) was in this sentence: "Using the power of office to make subordinates act unethically should be the equivalent of murder in what constitutes unethical conduct in government." In other words, nothing in government ethics is worse than co-opting subordinates into unethical conduct. This use of "murder" was not really one of violent imagery, but rather a reference to another sort of law enforcement.

The most chilling literal use of the word is from a post on China: "without local government ethics programs in China, murder is the unofficial form of local government ethics enforcement."

I only used the word "shoot" in the expression "shoot oneself in the foot" and "gun" in the expression "jumping the gun."

I haven't used "target" in any violent manner, but I have used the word on a few occasions in the context of being a "target" of a political attack or of bullying by local officials.

I quoted a county attorney using the term effectively in a positive way: "Our power, granted to us by the people, is not a personal tool to target political enemies or avenge perceived wrongs."

But I also quoted (and criticized) a mayor criticizing an organization that criticized his ethics by calling it "a left-leaning organization that likes to target Republicans."

I used the term "blow up" only once, as follows: "In many cases, we need to be told, not only that it is irresponsible to accept the personal benefit, but that the whole thing may blow up in your face, so don't do it."

The violent word I use the most is "attack," especially in terms of "personal attack." I always use it in a negative way, criticizing the use of personal attacks by officials against citizens and against each other. This is something I'm oversensitive about, because a false personal attack by a town attorney in a letter to the editor is what first inspired my involvement in government ethics. It was the first of many such false personal statements directed toward me.

"Attack" is the common term for such acts, but it should be used as sparingly as possible (for example, I used a different term in the last sentence), because it emotionalizes a matter and leads to quick denials rather than rational discussion. As much as they might like to defame those who speak out against them ("defame" is another alternative term), no one wants to be seen to be "attacking." It changes the issue from one of truth to one of violent intent.

The blog post in which I use the most violent imagery is one from last June entitled Supreme Court Decision on Honest Services Fraud Should Be Government Ethics Call to Arms. I used this imagery to try and wake up a sleepy profession, which has ignored other attempts to undermine government ethics, including the application of legislative immunity and free speech to conflicts of interest. This is an explanation, not an excuse, for my language, which also includes the terms "war" and "battle cry." I do note (parenthetically) that "I do not use martial imagery very often, except in fun or in reference to Maricopa County, AZ," a reference to the antagonism between the sheriff and other county elected officials. But I shouldn't be using this imagery at all, or even quoting the use of this imagery, except where necessary and with a criticism of the imagery.

For the purpose of government ethics, the issue isn't whether violent imagery leads to violence. What is important is that the use of violent imagery emotionalizes what should be dealt with rationally, and that this is an undesirable and dangerous way to manipulate people. I wanted to manipulate people with my honest services fraud post, and that was wrong. I should have tried to convince people without raising the ante of my imagery, even if I was open about the fact that I was doing it.

It's important to recognize that violent imagery is manipulative, and that it is always manipulative in a negative manner, even if the cause is a good one (for example, the War on Poverty). The place to start doing something about this is by being careful about the imagery that we use ourselves.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---