Thoughts

In my profile, I mention one of my favorite books: Roget's Thesarus.  Why that book?  I guess you can say that I am a student of semantics which is the study of the meaning.  When I write or speak, I want to be sure that I am using the right word to express what I want to express.  Words are the tools of thought and communication.  Since my goal is to communicate effectively, I want to be sure about the words that I am using.  When I say that I am student of semantics, I want to be sure that I am not misrepresenting myself as an expert on the subject.  Rather than be an expert, I just want to do it adequately.

It may have  been said before, but I'll say it again at the risk of being repetitive.  And that is this:  language is the one of the tools in the workshop of the mind.  In my own workshop, I value accuracy in my tools.  As I noted above, I want to be sure that I am using the right words with the right meaning that I want to convey.

Another tool in that workshop is psychological in nature.  One's vision needs to be accurate if one is going to be able to use the right language.  If what you see is distorted, you can't possibly use the right words because what you see isn't necessarily what is there.  There is this word call "denial" which prevents one from seeing accurately.  Rather than define the term here, I refer you to Dr. Sanity's blog where she describes in detail the meaning of this psychological construct.  Until you get your mind right on what denial is, you aren't going to be successful in being accurate in your use of the language, in my opinion.
 
This brings me to the word "vitriol", which was being used in a political context in connection to the shootings in Tuscon Arizona.  There were those who were blaming the 'vitriol" in the public discourse as being a causative factor in the event.  There were calls for more civility in our discourse.  Nothing wrong with more civility in our public discourse, I suppose.  But did "vitriol" in public discourse have anything to do with what happened in Arizona?  I think not, although others may disagree.  But let's return to this word "vitriol".  What does it mean?

Here's a definition from the Free Online Dictionary.  It isn't Roget's Thesaurus, but it will suffice here.

2. vitriol - abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will
invective, vituperation
contumely, insult, revilement, vilification, abuse - a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; "when a student made a stupid mistake he spared them no abuse"; "they yelled insults at the visiting team"

 No doubt that there were those who were trying to attach blame for the "Climate of Hate" which supposedly led to the shootings.  There were others who were attempting to link Sarah Palin to all this.  Can there be any doubt that there was an attempt to hurt Palin by making this connection?  Doesn't that fit the definition of "vitriol"?  What about Palin herself?  Is she supposed to just be quiet and not participate in the political process?  If no connection can be made to what she said or did in connection to these murders, then I think those who blamed her for the connection owe her an apology if they were serious about improving public discourse.  And those who blame the Climate of Hate ought to look at their own partisans and what they do before they begin criticizing others.  Likewise in the case of those who blamed Palin, they should apologizing for their own part in the vitriolic discourse if they want to have any credibility on the subject.

But let's be realistic here.  You can't expect Krugman to stop being liberal.  He is what he is.  Also, you can't do much about partisanship.  It is what it is.  I see politics as a necessary evil.  Somebody has to lead.  The way to decide who will be doing that isn't necessarily always nice.  It often lacks civility, but what can you do about it without resorting to censorship?  Clearly, the cure would be worse than the disease.  It think it would be best to be on the lookout for what is driving some of this stuff.  Then you can be on your guard against being manipulated.  I think the best guard is the truth.  That truth is this, vitriol goes with the territory.  It isn't likely to ever go away.  Eliminating it would only bring on something worse.

Politics isn't moral nor scientific.  It is, if it is anything that can be defined, its' a war of words.  Whoever commands the language best may put themselves in the best position to win the war.  This not only matters in the choice of words, but when, where and how they are being used.  Military metaphors are likely, and should be expected.  In the case of Palin using a bullseye, nobody should be shocked.  Nor should be anyone be shocked that there would be those who would try to use that politically if the occasion arose.