Violence does not occur in a vacuum. Violence occurs within a context. And that context is shaped by our words.  

Words matter.  

In times of heightened political tension that has resulted in violence during the past few years, examining the power of words and rhetoric in shaping our civic life is crucial. Extreme language can set dangerous events in motion. 

In our digital age, the overwhelming flood of information — and misinformation — plays a significant role in shaping political attitudes. Even the perception of being exposed to false information can affect our attitudes and increase political cynicism. When facts become a matter of perspective rather than objective truth, it becomes difficult to have meaningful debates or reach consensus on important issues.

As I have watched and listened to the increasingly divisive rhetoric dominating our political landscape nationally and locally, I can't help but feel a deep concern for the future of our democracy. Having studied the patterns of political violence in various contexts, I am reminded of the horrific events of the Rwandan genocide because I see troubling parallels in the way we're allowing extreme language to shape our civic life here in the United States.

In 1994, 1 million people were killed in Rwanda by people who were family members, friends, neighbors and regular attendees at Christian churches where they called one another “brother” and “sister” and worshiped with each other. Why? Words. The widespread embrace of dehumanizing rhetoric of political leaders, cultural influencers and media commentators. People were convinced by this reckless rhetoric to begin a rampage of mayhem on Easter weekend with the cooperation of clergy in some instances. (See Emmanuel Katongole with Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Mirror to the Church: Resurrecting Faith after Genocide in Rwanda). The story of Rwanda’s genocide is a prophetic warning of what happens in civil society when the rhetoric of tribalism and partisanship runs deeper within our civic identity than the bonds of our shared human dignity and citizenship. 

I believe there are valuable lessons we can learn from studying how extreme rhetoric has led to violence in other contexts. It shows us how quickly societal bonds can break down when we allow ourselves to be divided into "us" versus "them." While I believe we are far from the scenario that led to one of the worst genocides arising out of political tensions in a modern democracy, we must be vigilant against rhetoric that dehumanizes political opponents or paints them as existential threats. 

We are at a crossroads in American civic life where the words we use and the attitudes we foster could set us on a dangerous path. The assassination attempt of Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol serve as stark reminders of how inflammatory rhetoric can translate into real-world violence.

In American politics, a disturbing trend has been emerging: the adoption of extreme rhetoric to manipulate emotion and gain power. This approach has set into motion extreme actions and caused irreparable harm to our institutions. Such language breeds contempt, distrust and a perverted form of nationalism. This divisive rhetoric stands in stark contrast to the ideals of the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to moderate extremist views and to compel communication between competing political factions.

When political discourse becomes dominated by fear-mongering, anger and mistrust, it creates a volatile atmosphere. The horrific events of the Rwandan genocide are instructive, where dehumanizing language and tribalism led to unthinkable violence. While the scale and context are vastly different, the underlying principle remains: Words have the power to shape reality and influence actions.

Nevada, like many states across America, has experienced its share of political polarization in recent years. The Silver State's unique blend of urban centers and vast rural expanses has cultivated a landscape ripe for ideological clashes and heated rhetoric.

The urban-rural divide stands out as a primary source of tension. Las Vegas and Reno, with their diverse populations and economic drivers, often find themselves at odds with the state's rural communities about issues ranging from water rights to federal land management. This geographical split underpins many of the state's most contentious debates.

One of the most dramatic illustrations of this divide came in 2014 with the Cliven Bundy standoff. The Nevada rancher's refusal to pay grazing fees for use of federal lands escalated into an armed confrontation with federal authorities. This incident not only highlighted the ongoing disputes over land use and states' rights but also demonstrated how quickly political disagreements can spiral into potentially violent situations.

The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed and exacerbated political divisions in Nevada. In May 2020, armed protesters gathered at the Governor's Mansion in Carson City to oppose pandemic restrictions. While the protest remained peaceful, the image of armed citizens at the seat of government power underscored the intense emotions surrounding individual freedoms versus public health measures.

Even within political parties, Nevada has seen its share of turmoil. The 2016 Nevada Democratic Convention devolved into chaos amid disputes regarding delegate selection. While initial reports concerning the extent of the violence were disputed by participants,, the event nonetheless highlighted the deep fissures within the party and the challenges of maintaining unity in a polarized political climate.

Perhaps most troubling are instances where political rhetoric crosses into overt racism or threats of violence. In 2021, Republican attorney general candidate Sigal Chattah's private message suggesting that her African American opponent should be "hanging from a f***ing crane" became public. This shocking statement not only inflamed racial tensions but also raised serious questions about the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. Since then, Chattah has been rewarded for her violent rhetoric by the Republican party by being elected Republican National Committee committeewoman twice. 

These examples paint a picture of how our beloved state is grappling with the same polarization affecting much of the nation. From armed standoffs to heated conventions, from pandemic protests to racist rhetoric, Nevada has experienced the gamut of political division.

As I have previously written, political cynicism is a key factor contributing to this divisive climate. This attitude of disdain toward our institutions and leaders is often rewarded in our media landscape. Sarcastic and negative takes on current events garner more attention than constructive dialogue. We consider it astute and insightful when comedians, politicians, pastors, reporters and political commentators sardonically pontificate on the news of the day.

This cynicism is dangerous. It erodes faith in our democratic institutions and creates an environment where solving societal problems becomes increasingly difficult. When we believe the system is fundamentally broken or corrupt, we disengage from the political process or become susceptible to extreme ideologies promising sweeping change.

Political cynicism, not just ideological polarization, is a major driver of political radicalization. It's not just that moderates are becoming more extreme in their views; rather, cynicism toward the entire political system is pushing people toward radical alternatives. This cynicism manifests as a profound negative attitude toward and lack of trust in the establishment, dividing moderates from radicals and populists.

However, it's crucial to note that these incidents and developments locally and nationally, while concerning, are not representative of the majority of political engagement in Nevada. Most citizens continue to participate in the democratic process peacefully and constructively. The challenge lies in addressing the root causes of these divisions and fostering a political climate that encourages respectful dialogue and compromise.

As Nevada continues to grow and evolve, its political landscape will undoubtedly face further tests. The key will be in how its leaders and citizens navigate these challenges, striving to bridge divides rather than deepen them. Only through a commitment to civil discourse and a rejection of extremism can Nevada hope to build a political future that truly represents all its diverse communities.

So, what can we do? We should adopt a positive and proactive attitude toward our neighbors, civil society and our government. This means challenging the dysfunctional status quo, emphasizing our shared humanity, promoting active citizenship, holding our leaders accountable and fostering critical thinking. We also need to confront rhetoric and actions that undermine democratic values and human dignity. In this regard, I suggest several approaches to civic engagement, including:

1. Emphasizing shared values: Despite ideological differences, Americans share many core values that can serve as a foundation for dialogue. We need to resist the urge to see those who disagree with us as enemies and instead recognize our shared hopes for a better future.

2. Promoting civic education: Helping citizens understand the design and function of democratic institutions can build trust and engagement. When we understand how our government is supposed to work, we're better equipped to participate and hold each other and our leaders accountable without resorting to destructive rhetoric and political violence.

3. Rewarding collaboration: Create political incentives for leaders who work across party lines to solve problems. Our current system often rewards conflict over cooperation. We need to change this by supporting politicians who demonstrate a willingness to collaborate and find common ground.

4. Encouraging diverse media consumption: Exposing oneself to a variety of viewpoints can combat echo chambers and reduce polarization. This doesn't mean giving equal weight to all opinions, but rather seeking out credible sources that challenge our preconceptions.

5. Practicing empathy: Making an effort to understand the concerns and perspectives of those with different political views is crucial. This doesn't mean abandoning our principles, but rather approaching disagreements with curiosity and compassion.

Moreover, our religious communities fulfill a critical role in either exacerbating or healing political divides. Therefore, we must guard against the politicization of faith, which can turn churches into repositories of grievances rather than grace. (Peter Wehner, The Evangelical Church is Breaking Apart: Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church, The Atlantic, Oct. 24, 2022). Instead, faith communities have the potential to be powerful voices for reconciliation, emphasizing shared values and the dignity of all people.

As a person of faith myself, I'm particularly concerned about the rise of Christian nationalism, which often uses religious language to justify political extremism. We must remember that our primary allegiance should be to our faith in God who created us in His image, a shared human dignity that this faith affirms and the principles of justice and grace, not to any political party or ideology.

Ultimately, I believe the health of our democracy rests on our shoulders as citizens. Or, perhaps, in our tongues. Before we raise our voices in outrage about what we don't like about those we elect, we should consider how our own biases, prejudices, fears and anger have contributed to the results we've achieved together. We often get the leaders we deserve, and if we don't like what we see in our political mirror, it's time for some serious self-reflection.

This self-reflection requires us to examine our own rhetoric and political activity. Have we allowed cynicism to infect our perspectives and actions? Have we contributed to the toxic political culture we decry? It's easy to blame politicians or media figures for the state of our discourse, but every citizen plays a role in shaping our civic environment.

The United States faces significant challenges in maintaining a healthy democratic culture. The rise of extreme rhetoric, pervasive cynicism and the spread of misinformation all threaten to undermine the foundations of civil society. The challenges we face are significant, but I remain hopeful. 

The path forward requires effort from all sectors of society — political leaders, media figures, faith communities and individual citizens. By consciously choosing to reject dehumanizing language, resisting cynicism and engaging in good faith with those who hold different views, we can work toward a political culture that solves problems rather than exacerbates divisions. We need to stop rewarding those who embrace divisive tactics and instead support leaders who demonstrate a commitment to unity and problem-solving.

By embracing a positive and proactive attitude toward civil society and government and working actively to improve our political discourse, we can help ensure that the United States remains a vibrant and resilient democracy for generations to come. We can choose a path of faith rather than fear, hope rather than distrust and love for one another — even our political opponents — rather than hatred and revenge.

The choice is ours. Let's choose our words wisely. Our democracy depends on it.

Jason D. Guinasso is an attorney with Greenman Goldberg Raby & Martinez in Reno and Las Vegas. Licensed in Nevada and California, he is a litigator and trial attorney. He also teaches business law at UNR and is a graduate student in the MALTS program at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author in his personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views of his law firm, its clients or any other organization with which the author may be affiliated. 

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].