‘This Maniac… Needs to be Removed’

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/Nathan Howard)

Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) is willing to put his name, reputation and political well-being on the line with some heated, inflammatory comments about a world leader.

In talking about the conflict in the Middle East and question of humanity in Gaza, Bowman ripped into Israel’s Prime Minister.

“The majority of Gaza has already been destroyed through acts of collective punishment by this maniac, Benjamin Netanyahu,” Bowman said to MSNBC’s Alex Witt. 

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo by Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)

“I’m 100% with Senator Schumer,” Bowman said. “He needs to be removed. He is a blockade to a pathway to peace. And we need a ceasefire right now. That’s what we should be focused on humanitarian aid, not weapons.” 

The weapons he referred to, as reported by Filip Timotija, writing at The Hill, were the Biden administration’s transfer of 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs, 500 MK82 500-pound bombs and 25 F-35A fighter jets to Israel without notifying lawmakers, all of which was reported by the Washington Post. 

Bowman’s anger was specific and clear.

“This is about our humanity and this is about our morality.

“We have hundreds of thousands of children starving to death in Gaza right now, as we speak,” he said. “The majority of the American people support a permanent ceasefire. The majority of my district supports a permanent ceasefire. We need a permanent ceasefire.

He drives home his point by mentioning “ceasefire” three times, for effect.

“We need to bring in hundreds of trucks that are five miles away from Gaza right now, of aid, to save as many lives as possible. There’s a humanitarian crisis,” Bowman stated.

Hanne Wulp

His commentary, especially communicating, “... acts of collective punishment by this maniac, Benjamin Netanyahu” was razor-sharp to what he sees as being immoral, maybe evil decision-making and behavior.

This type of political leader communication is not without problems.

“To me, it is very risky for a lawmaker to express themselves in this manner,” says Hanne Wulp, the founder of Communication Wise and a mediator, conflict coach and executive communication trainer.

“The riskiness is two-fold. One has to do with the quality and quantity of information and the use of words. Does one truly have enough balanced information, which means having gathered information from both sides, to call someone from any side, a maniac?

“Have they talked to them or been close enough to know that this person one calls a maniac has lost their mind — and is now exhibiting extreme symptoms of wild behavior? That’s what it means to be a maniac.

“The other part of riskiness has to do with one’s role in society and with that, one’s level of influence.

“When you're an anonymous person in the street, you can get away with a level of stereotyping and generalizing: putting people in boxes, according to your personal, communal flavor of boxing others up.

“As opposed to a public figure who makes a public statement.

“This has a much bigger influence on others’ opinions and judgments. Taking this perspective, it’s obvious that ‘freedom of speech’ gets a different meaning. You have to take responsibility and accountability for riling people up this way.”

Bowman’s use of “collective punishment” is noteworthy. It can be asked if that is indeed what has been and is occurring.

“I cannot answer this question, I don’t possess the quantity and quality of the information that is needed to answer,” Wulp says. “If I question this for this American lawmaker, who am I to answer?”

When respectfully asked to sensitively, objectively elaborate, she agreed.

“The use of ‘collective punishment’ does not precisely crystalize what is happening. It needs more explanation for me to understand better what Mr. Bowman means by it,” Wulp says. “However, one has only so much time, and can only use so many words in a news clip like this.

“To me, Mr. Bowman sent a clear message: ‘The people in Gaza desperately need help in the form of food and shelter. We have to provide that to them.’”

Jamaal Bowman

She communicates with some perspective taking:

“I can hear this core message because I am safe over here and I don’t have close ones going through this. I also don’t identify — or side with — either part of the conflict. So it’s much easier for me to get the message and brush over the insult of using the word ‘maniac’ and not get triggered by the statement to take immediate action,” Wulp reasons.

How one views Bowman’s political communication is largely dependent on whom the listener and reader is and their experiences, emotions and meaning derived from them.

“If I would strongly side with either Israel or Palestine, it would have highly triggered me and this is why I am of the opinion that public professionals — those whose voices are heard and easily sided with or gone against — should be much more careful with their words, statements and intentions, than others,” Wulp professionally contends.

“If I would strongly side with Palestine, it could have triggered me in a way that I’d think and feel: ‘Why are they punishing us when we never did anything wrong!’ A punishment, meaning an infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

“When you don’t believe you’ve ever offended, it feels extremely unfair that harm is being done and it triggers a counteraction that could make things worse and deepen the conflict more.”

“If I would strongly side with Israel, the statements of ‘collective punishment’ and insult of ‘maniac’ could have triggered me to tune out the entire statement.

“And so the call for humanitarian help, food and shelter would have gone lost, which is a shame, because that is what Mr. Bowman meant, at least, that is what I heard as a message,” Wulp says.

It is unsure what all will be the byproduct of Bowman’s communication. What is known is that vivid, aggressive communication from leaders gets attention and can drive negative and harmful reactions.

“These types of statements provoke emotions such as anger, upset and agitation,’ Wulp says, adding a warning. “Yes, they cause others to want to take action: It triggers short-term solution thinking, not deliberate well-thought-out plans and execution.”

She doesn’t see Bowman’s words being considered as inspiring to lift the quality of the conversation and debate.

“Inspiring to me means something that is ultimately working out for peace and well-being, experienced by the biggest group of people,” Wulp asserts. “I question that calling someone a ‘maniac’ will lead to this outcome.”

There is something important to remember, however, she says.

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be faced that is not faced,” per James Baldwin.

In the case of entrenched conflicts and communication, such as this one, “It’s the wording and lack of responsibility and accountability for taking in a position of power and influence that is the problem,” Wulp says, “not pointing out the problem.”

Communication Intelligence magazine
April, 2024