Readers’ comments in the Spy typically are rational and thoughtful, though often hard-edged. A comment last week in response to my column about General Mark Milley and his commitment to our Constitution and democracy during the last two-and-a-half tortuous months of Donald Trump’s presidency crossed the line of propriety. The reader suggested that Milley “should come before a firing squad.”
Milley ensured that our military was not used for un-democratic purposes, such as collecting election machines in an effort by Trump and his gang of co-conspirators to prove that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. For his actions to preserve our United States Armed Forces as non-political, the reader implies that the general was a traitor. In fact, he was a hero. He understood the danger of the uniformed services being a pawn at the behest of an irresponsible leader.
Such shameful, provocative language exacerbates the mistrust of an institution so valuable to our democracy, tied directly to the Constitution. Milley should receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not senseless criticism as embodied by the assertion he should face a firing squad for reasons known only to the reader.
Really? What kind of person suggests such a despicable notion about a well-respected military officer?
A conversation with a longtime friend unearthed a former political reality in the early part of the 20th century: Democrats and Republicans would disagree about contentious policies, such as the size of government, without engaging in personal assassination. Led by our former president, ad hominem attacks have increased in intensity and vitriol.
I wonder how our republic benefits from smears. It undeniably worsens the quality—and even the possibility– of civil political discourse. Name-calling as practiced last week by the Spy reader achieves little but satisfy the reader’s anger and disjointed sense of retribution. A civil conversation becomes impossible, poisoned by useless vilification.
While I understand that calumny has always characterized political combat in our country, I believe that words written by the reader and spoken by political leaders, including the former White House occupant, provoke violence and distrust of our institutions. It should be no surprise when physical altercations occur.
How does our fragile democracy benefit amid the incitement of abhorrent, antagonistic behavior? It surely does not. It becomes frayed. Polite dialogue suffers. Collaboration is an unachievable goal.
Some think that our precious nation is simply going through a bad patch.
That could be true. Destruction of our democracy, however, as practiced by election-deniers and law enforcement critics, is threatening the threads of belief in our dysfunctional country. We love to hate and hate to reconcile.
Who or what leads us out of the wilderness? Is it possible to avoid a constant war of words and harmful actions? Are our ‘‘better angels” buried too deeply in our polarizing mindsets to resist resurrection?
The Spy provides a vibrant forum for differing opinions. They mostly are well-informed and constructive. Though comments can be edgy at times, I do not recall a reader suggesting that an esteemed military leader be the target of a firing squad.
Summer is nearing an end. The political season is heating up. Crazy talk is commonplace. I trust that our ensuing dialogue will not descend into language calling for shooting a national leader, even as a rhetorical device. Potential violence is a close ally of incendiary talk.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Robert Siegfried says
Columnist Freedlander’s Opinion piece on “ Detrimental Dialogue” is both on point and most timely. Kudos to him for having the courage to write it and highlight this awful cancer that afflicts our discourse . A society cannot survive on” threats” . “ Wishing harm” on others is , simply put, cruel .
Referencing a previous opinion piece, the columnist notes that a reader , in response, asserted that General Milley should “ come before a firing squad”. That crazed assertion speaks volumes about that reader’s lack of self awareness and self control. It is not a rational statement but rather a form of bullying – which sadly we are witnessing at every level in our society today.
Craig Fuller says
Well stated! I remember getting good advice about putting a tough letter back in my desk drawer until the next day. After 24 hours, a bit calmer reaction usually came over this writer of notes. Seems like any phrase that suggests ending the death of another might be set aside for 24 hours….just a thought as a step towards more civil discourse!
Chip Heartfield says
I agree with you but find it odd you did not also call out the equally shameful reply by another reader that Donald Trump should go before a firing squad instead. Or go further and include mentions of comedians holding up severed heads of presidents and actors calling for presidents to be assassinated or for the White House to be blown up? There is way too much of this violent language from all sides and it can and has led to violent actions being taken.
Gerard Marconi says
Sadly, many responses to our current state of political affairs depend on distorted sources of information. General Milley’s role in preventing our former president from using the military to put down civilian reactions to his own abuses of power have been well documented recently in both New Yorker magazine and the Washington Post. He is to many a hero dedicated to the Constitution but those whose only sources are on the extreme right consider him a traitor. Let’s hope that such talk does not descend into violence in the coming election cycle.
Cynthia Pyron says
Thank you, Mr. Freedlander, for your many well written comments. I believe that our country is in real danger if all this name calling continues. Thank goodness my son is an adult now for I also fear the young people in our country will simulate Trump. Name calling is only a response indicating the speaker has insufficient vocabulary to same something intelligent, or to state his opinion based on truthful facts. It, in my opinion, is also an immature emotional reaction. Statesmen that have my attention, weigh their words carefully, as you do, showing a depth of character, intelligence and integrity.
Reed Fawell 3 says
While I surely agree that the “firing squad comment” was way out of line, inappropriate and over the top, I do believe that the Mr. Freedlander’s assumed basis for judging General Milley’s performance as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was woefully incomplete, myopic, and uninformed, so way off the mark.
Carol chisholm says
There is freedom of speech but hate messages are not protected and that was what your commenter spouted. I’m interested in ideas not harangues but lately see some of the latter in the spy. Letters to the editor, in my opinion, should not be shared the same way as informed, educated information.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Yes, I agree, Carol. Note how the hateful and lack of informed responses to Mr. Freedlander’s article go both ways without comment, including, for example, “Cadet Bone Spurs, Coward in Chief Trump is the one who should be placed in front of a firing squad! … General Miley is a 4 Star Marine General. You don’t pack the gear to question him, his Leadership, Principals or actions.” The New Yorker apparently is now America’s gold standard along with “4 star Marine General” Milley, both infallible and divinely inspired for today’s “true believer, beyond question and/or critique.
Wilson Dean says
Legitimizing violence in our everyday speech leads to actual violence in our country. The highly charged rhetoric coming from some so-called leaders that have led to recent threats and attacks on the FBI as well as the January 6th insurrection at our Capitol makes this abundantly clear. We would all make this country a better place for democracy if people left their AR-15s locked up at home and decided to converse using their brains instead.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Yes, that “highly charged rhetoric coming from some so-called leaders” has also lead to “recent threats and attacks” against sitting Supreme Court Justices, as well as regular and chronic torching of our cities and government buildings throughout our nation, such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles. We need to stop being selective in our condemnation of those irresponsible leaders no matter their party, and also of those committing the crimes as a result.
Deirdre LaMotte says
I dare say this is not about both sideism. The “touching of government buildings” were about civil right violations and the perpetual killings of unarmed Black men by those who are to protect us all. They were swiftly dealt with. Not so with White Supremist groups. Edward Luce of the Financial times said last week:
“I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a
political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”
“I agree. And I was CIA Director”, Hayden wrote in a tweet.
Hayden of course was a Bush appointee, and with the conservative National Review.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Deirdre, you say:
“I dare say this is not about both sideism. The “touching of government buildings” were about civil right violations and the perpetual killings of unarmed Black men by those who are to protect us all. They were swiftly dealt with.”
Deirdre, how do you think “they were swiftly dealt with?”
What do you think they gained? What do you think they lost? What do you think everyone gained, and lose? Who was hurt most? And how were things solved and how do you think it all ends?
Deirdre LaMotte says
Why are you mudding the water and sowing confusion? Is this intentional to make a both sides statement or are you really not worried are democracy is diminishing? This is typical whataboutism. The fact that one segment of our nation is actively advocating violence is unmistakable. While it is rare that social progress comes without force in a democracy, Gay Americans fought police and rioted in New York to over through homophobic policies, violent labor riots helped end unsafe work conditions ,and slavery in the US ended only after our deadliest war, these were done in the end to help our democracy: to ensure every citizen matters and is given freedom to live their lives equally.
The far right and election deniers are doing the opposite: trying to ensure a white governing class and overturning of elections they do not agree with. And let us look at the source of lying, name calling and school yard taunts: the new and sad GOP, embellished by the former President and it keeps on propagating. Hypocrisy never is an attractive feature, right?
Reed Fawell 3 says
Deirdre;
After I asked you about “recent threats and attacks” against Supreme Court Justices, and regular and chronic torching of our cities and government buildings throughout our nation, such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles, and asked you how they were dealt with, and who was harmed and who gained from these years of violence, you replied:
“Why are you mudding the water and sowing confusion? Is this intentional to make a both sides statement or are you really not worried are democracy is diminishing?”
Actually, Deirdre, I am trying to bring the reality of what is going on into the light of day, and to bring order out of today’s rampant confusion, and to save what is left of our republic. This includes its democratic elements that are under attack via the rising waves of lawlessness in America of all kinds, including the chronic torching of our urban areas that destroys homes, neighborhoods, jobs, workplaces, institutions, and other social infrastructure on which our citizens, their health and success, depend for success, indeed for survival.
Next, Deirdre, you assert that “The fact that one segment of our nation is actively advocating violence is unmistakable.”
Surely, Deirdre, you agree that those torching American cities such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles,” are actively advocating violence. Or do you?
Your next comment suggests that these cities should be torched as needed to preserve our democracy and to insure the freedom and equally for all. Here you say:
“While it is rare that social progress comes without force in a democracy, Gay Americans fought police and rioted in New York to over through homophobic policies, violent labor riots helped end unsafe work conditions and slavery in the US ended only after our deadliest war, these were done in the end to help our democracy: to ensure every citizen matters and is given freedom to live their lives equally.”
Here, I say unfettered force always destroys democracies. History proves this over and over, without exception. So your arguments here are not the ingredients of freedom and democracy, hope and prosperity. They are the ingredients of tyranny wrought by the force of a few out of the lawless chaos they intentionally impose. History proves this too. The only ingredient missing is the demolition of free speech and political opposition. And sure enough, Deirdre, you’ve thought of that demolition too, saying:
“The far right and election deniers are doing the opposite: trying to ensure a white governing class and overturning of elections they do not agree with. And let us look at the source of lying, name calling and school yard taunts: the new and sad GOP, embellished by the former President and it keeps on propagating. Hypocrisy never is an attractive feature, right?
Here the psychic curse of the zealot reigns supreme, Projection. But unlike you, Deirdre, I see this monstrous threat rising from extremists, zealots, and ideologues of all parties and cadres,not just those I don’t support.
Thomas Malone says
Right on Howard!