“When men run out of words, they reach for their swords.” This stark observation, attributed to Oliver Cromwell, echoes with an unnerving resonance in America today. From headlines noting a rise in vigilante activity to other disturbing incidents of political violence, it feels as if our societal ability to engage in civil discourse is eroding, replaced by an increasingly dangerous “battle of the narrative,” says LS World Crises teacher Mr. Grace.
This battle is playing out not just in the halls of power, but even in the most unexpected places. Take the recent ICE shootings in Minnesota, for example. Footage emerged of an officer shooting a civilian, Renee Good, while in her car. Yet almost immediately after the incident, a narrative took hold: the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) painted Good as a “domestic terrorist” who had intended to hit the ICE agent with her vehicle. Grace says politicians are “concerned with winning” this narrative conflict and are “willing to make conclusions and omit parts of the story” to stay in control. He considers the questions of why isn’t the government doing research, looking at all footage, and investigating the shooting, rather than creating a conclusion within hours of the event. He says that the DOJ (Department of Justice) would have needed to investigate the circumstances in its entirety, including the people involved, eyewitness accounts, and footage, and step back to look at the whole situation comprehensively in order to come to an honest conclusion. They failed to consider all these factors. Politicians, Grace says, don’t take an oath to an individual person, but rather to the constitution.
Grace attributes this fight of narrative control to the nature of politics, and notes it as a main cause of political violence. He says, “For me, as a person who studies history and political science, it is really critical to maintain support from the bulk of the citizens. When one political side can say, ‘I don’t have to listen to you anymore because your methodology is flawed,’ this gives them the power to go outside the lines of what is legal and what is not.” He says, “if people feel the political system doesn’t serve them, they see themselves as allowed to go outside the system” and entitled to take “extralegal” steps. These ideas surfaced on January 6, 2021, when Trump declared political violence “extralegal” and outside the system, and pardoned all those who were involved in the violence at the Capitol. Grace further says that the progression goes from someone believing that they wouldn’t use violence but they could understand why someone would, to then supporting violence, and finally doing something about it. This development gives them “license to do whatever they want and the power to decide.” People feel that they don’t need to be legal in their actions anymore once they decide that the system they are subordinate to is broken and that they must save it. He states, “Once you hear people dehumanizing others, that they ‘hate parts of the country,’ or call others ‘animals,’ this means that violence is acceptable to them.”
Grace also notes the use of the narrative to promote fear in citizens to give those in power more leeway to do as they please: “The scariest politicians are the ones who tell you to be afraid.” Politicians, he claims, often tell people that they are in danger, and that the people in power are the only ones who can save them. In Trump’s statements on the Iran strikes, he says, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people…,” showcasing this savior complex (BBC News). Grace says that it is imperative that “we know that this is a chosen method to persuade the public.” Knowledge of these tactics is the first step in taking away blind following of authority and breaking this violent cycle.
The rush to judgment, the omission of inconvenient facts, and the deliberate shaping of a story to serve a political end are all hallmarks of this “battle.”
