The Language of Assault vs the Language of Dialogue
By Franklin H. Littell
Dr. Franklin H. Littell is a well known author, lecturer, and Christian ethics activist. An ordained Methodist minister, he has been president of Iowa Wesleyan University and has held a number of significant teaching posts including a position last year as the Robert Foster Cherry Distinguished Visiting Professor at Baylor University. By action of the Israel cabinet, Dr. Littell was given the first non-Jewish appointment to the International council of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. By appointments from Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush, he served for fifteen years as a member of the council that planned and built the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The Center for Christian Ethics is pleased to be working collaboratively with him on matters of mutual concern.
The shocking assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, was a stunning and traumatic act. But it was no surprise. In fact, the murder was the culmination of months of verbal assault.
A hero in war, Rabin had been hated and vilified and threatened for forty years by the despots and dictators of the Arab "rejection front" and their terrorist hirelings. An officer in the War of Independence, he later played pivotal roles four times in the defense of his country against combined military attacks.
As a statesman in peace, he was verbally assaulted also by extremist cadres in the Jewish right wing. As the "peace process" inched forward, as their imperial dreams of an expansionist Israel began to recede, their vilification and threats became a crescendo in intensity and fury.
Like the Arab extremists, the Jewish extremists called Rabin a "Nazi." To this they added verbal blows like "traitor" and "betrayer" and "murderer." Worst of all, from a religious perspective, they wrapped up their murderous political violence in the language of piety and orthodoxy.
This is the Language of Assault, which prepares the way and justifies physical violence. It can never be justified under a legitimate government. Some think assault and counter-assault are the only political recourse under despotisms and dictatorships. Against such illegitimate regimes they may be justified, although there are excellent scholars of politics who have concluded that massive Non-Violent Direct Action is superior–in the immediate present and in the long run–to any popular, violent revolt against tyrannies. In any case, the Language of Assault, with murder its logical end result, has no place among free and democratic peoples.
The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin reminds us of the way the assassination of John F. Kennedy was prepared. Nationwide, Kennedy was subjected to the most shameless verbal assaults by American extremist groups. In the autumn of 1963, the decibels increased in intensity. The John Birch Society and its allies plastered Dallas with posters showing the head of the President surmounted by cross-hairs from target practice. On November 22nd, JFK was assassinated. The nation was in trauma, but we had no excuse to be surprised.
Among free and responsible peoples, there is another language: the Language ofDialogue. As one of its keener students has pointed out, the Language of Assault is intended to shorten the life expectancy of its targets. By contrast, the Language of Dialogue is intended to tend the political covenant, to inform the public forum, to better the common welfare.
Using the Language of Dialogue, it is possible for fellow-citizens to articulate sharp differences of opinion–and to live with the solutions worked out. The words of assault, vilification, mendacity, and incitement have no place in democratic discussion, and they are out of place in the politics of democracy.
Those who use the Language of Assault against those of other opinion and policy, if the others are guided by civility and due process, have marked themselves as fit objects of the ban. Many confused citizens, their confusion deliberately compounded by the mercenary media and vagrant lawyers, cannot presently distinguish the Language of Assault from the Language of Dialogue. Seduced by babblings about "individual rights," "First Amendment rights" and "freedom," they are led to accept the idea that pornography, tobacco advertising, campaigns of verbal assault against political opponents–in fact almost any idea that has enough money back of it to pay for an advertisement or hire a wandering lawyer–should have free run.
The slow moral undermining of the moral and physical health of a society is more difficult to measure. Nevertheless, words have consequences in action. And the immediate result of a crescendo of irresponsible verbal assault can be marked in the burial of a hero of war and of peace a few weeks ago in Jerusalem.
The "wild tongues" have won a temporary victory. But the leaders of the free peoples are rallying to save the "peace process" which Yitzhak Rabin helped shape. And the responsible leaders of political groups in his own country are moving to isolate and quarantine the practitioners of the Language of Assault. Those who love the life of free and responsible men and women may again remind themselves, in the words of an American heroine, Sojourner Truth, "Freedom is a hard-bought thing."
Today is a time for Israelis and lovers of Israel to recall the words of Rudyard Kipling`s "Recessional:"
"If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not thee in awe–
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law–
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget–lest we forget!"
