It will be harder for one side to cool the rhetoric

[Bad Thoughts]

When discussing the role of political rhetoric in the Giffords assassination attempt, it's become somewhat fashionable--even here at DU--to establish equivalencies between how Democrats and Republicans conduct their "campaigns". Even calling them campaigns suggests a certain martial quality that both sides accept. The use of the dartboard target has been raised as a way of showing that Democrats have used certain symbols when going after political opponents. I find such equivalencies hard to swallow. They don't come with explicit references to gun culture, suggestive use of violence, or place them in the context of survival of one's own being. None of the so-called target maps from Democratic organizations made the election a life or death struggle.

Regardless of how effective these equivalencies are, how political rhetoric on both sides changes will reveal more about the character of both and perhaps who is to blame.

-- Will one side have more difficulty than the other changing its tone?
-- Will one side be less effective than the other at rooting out dangerous metaphors and idioms?
-- Will one side lose its connection to some segment of its constituencies as it changes its tone?

I think the results will be clear over time.