The special session of the Minnesota legislature may have been prompted by the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, but the specter of Melissa Hortman’s murder obviously looms large over the proceedings.
One of their own, she and her husband were murdered this year by a right-leaning nutbar–whether he thought he was doing it for Gov. Tim Walz or not, he still had right-leaning politics…and he was clearly a nutbar–and many of the lawmakers are well aware of what happened and were impacted by her murder and the wounding of another colleague and his wife.
As it stands, we’re on the precipice of something nasty, and I really don’t know how we take a step back.
Lawmakers in Minnesota, though, are signing a pledge to tone down the rhetoric, hopeful that it’ll be the first step.
Like his fellow Minnesota lawmakers, Luke Frederick lost a friend and colleague over the summer.
The state representative, a Democrat from Mankato, worked with former House Speaker Melissa Hortman before her assassination June 14.
No one should be exposed to political violence, Frederick said Tuesday before signing a pledge to reject rhetoric that incites it. “Signing this today is an act to show that I’m committed to that,” he said.
Majority in the Middle, a civic engagement nonprofit, came up with the pledge in response to Hortman’s slaying. Lawmakers were invited to sign it during an event in Mankato coinciding with the nonprofit’s release of a new report measuring bipartisanship at the Minnesota Legislature.
…
More collaboration across party lines in past sessions doesn’t mean lawmakers will start agreeing with each other on contentious issues, said Shannon Watson, Majority in the Middle’s executive director. It may at least soften the tone of disagreements, she said.
“You’re much less likely to say something with sort of a nasty tone to someone who you like and respect and know,” she said.
Frederick supported the goals behind the pledge, while pointing out its limitations. Nothing is binding about the document, and saying “we should work together” doesn’t address the undercurrents causing division.
It can’t be binding, of course, and that’s probably for the best, because some people will be so engaged in tone policing that no one would be able to say anything they disagree with.
Look, I don’t like where it seems like we’re heading. Charlie Kirk’s assassination still has me a bit rattled, and it’s just the latest example of politically motivated violence in the last few years. Toning down the back-and-forth rhetoric might do a lot to actually help.
However, let’s also remember that a lot of people feel absolutely justified in calling their opponents things like “racist” or “Nazi” and don’t think they’re being harsh in their assessments. They legitimately think they’re right and that it would be a crime not to call people such things.
Plus, a lot of the rhetoric comes from pundits, activists, and influencers, not from the politicians themselves. That’s where at least some of the problem lies. On guns, for example, how many times can you claim that pro-gun people simply want children to die before someone decides they’re not human anymore? Does it really matter if it’s a politician, some dude on YouTube, or a columnist in a major newspaper?
I like where the heart is at on this, but I’m mighty much afraid this is, at best, closing the barn door after the horse got out.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy [Insert Site’s] conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Bearing Arms VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Read the full article here
