The Tucson Shooting's Most Important Questions

Since the shooting in Tucson on Saturday, lots of important questions have been raised - questions that go to issues than transcend even the monumentally horrific shooting itself. In the interest of summation, here are the best questions I've seen on Twitter, Facebook, in the blogosphere, on radio and elsewhere.

- If after a calculated political assassination attempt we cannot talk about the downsides of a right-wing media that effectively endorses political violence, when can we talk about this subject? Or should we never talk about this problem?

- Aren't calculated political assassination attempts by definition "political?" If so, then how can anyone argue that anyone is trying to "politicize" the Tucson shooting?

- If an Islamic cleric prominently posted a graphic on the Internet with a target on a particular congresswoman, and then a Muslim shot that congresswoman, would the GOP and the conservative media call it terrorism and in part blame the cleric? If the answer is yes, why isn't the same standard applied to Sarah Palin?

- Knowing that Rep. Giffords publicly worried about the "conseqeuences" of Palin's violent rhetoric, don't we owe it to her to now talk about those consequences in a sober and serious way?

- Since the shooting, has a single conservative movement leader denounced violence-glorifying political rhetoric?

- If cultural conservatives believe violent video games and comic books are dangerous because they can foment violence, why don't those same conservatives believe violent rhetoric broadcast on TV and radio won't do the same thing?

- Do conservatives really expect America to believe someone can't be both crazy/deranged and also motivated by a culture that says violence is an acceptable form of political expression?

- Even if there is no direct/literal connection between right-wing rhetoric that glorifies violence and the shooting in Tucson, wouldn't society be better off without such violence-glorifying rhetoric being so ubiquitous? What would be such a terrible tragedy if this horrific shooting resulted in less such rhetoric?

Use the comments section to give us your honest answers to these queries. These are really important questions - and they remain unanswered.

 

 

 

Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota

Comments

[StopThePlanet]

05:56 PM on 01/11/2011

The answer to all of the questions is that the right wants to absolve themselves of any responsibility.  Period.  Any attempt to hold them accountable will result in some sort of deflection of blame.

[Jeff Kuentzler]

08:02 PM on 01/11/2011

No one really is at fault here, Liberal OR conservative. What is wrong with your comment is this, you're saying Conservatives are absolving themselves from any responsibility to absolve the actual shooter of responsibility. I have only seen a couple remarks about the shooter being at fault. I can't watch 24 hours a day, but i still haven't seen any evidence of this violent rhetoric. All i see are journalists saying it exists without any proof it exists. however i have given links showing actual violent rhetoric from the left. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...i just don't see the gander showing facts, instead i only see accusations.

[zell]

05:42 PM on 01/11/2011

The answer, David, is that these hate-filled people think that they are above the law and above everybody else and do not ever admit wrong.......We are all wrong sometimes and saying "I am sorry" should not be a problem for anyone........But, we see that it is.......All I know to do is pray and that is what I have been doing.........

[Jeff Kuentzler]

01:25 PM on 01/11/2011

What would be such a terrible tragedy if this horrific shooting resulted in less such rhetoric? Yet again, i have yet to hear anyone you speak of calling for violence or killing. I sited specific examples of violent rhetoric from leftist...where are your examples? Oh and the tragedy would be this little Freedom of Speech thing people keep talking about. Who is going to define "violent" rhetoric? and is that individual going to go after the Black Panthers when they call for killing crackers? or focus on Beck because he says the word "revolution" even tho he has said "Personal Revolution"? It's freedom of speech, i think your article is full of misinformation and scare tactics, you don't site any facts, and you lump EVERY single conservative into this mass of violent hatred foaming at the mouth...yet i use my freedom of speech to reply to your freedom of speech, i disagree with what you say but i don't want you to not be able to say it. You flat out lie in places yet i don't want to make Lying illegal. Get over yourself and your political party.

[StopThePlanet]

08:17 PM on 01/11/2011

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/anti-obama-violence/
 
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-right-wing-political-violence.html
 
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904100036
 
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/26/video-gop-extremism/
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001323-503544.html
 
Just a few easy examples of violent right-wing rhetoric.  Search engines work well for finding things if you want to find them.  There are plenty more examples

[anti-phony]

11:52 AM on 01/11/2011

He's been described as a "left wing pothead" by his classmates. . I really don't think any rhetoric is responsible left or right, but I do think the Community College had a responsibility to report his actions to the proper authorities

[StopThePlanet]

08:17 PM on 01/11/2011

He is a registered independent.

[cmp1966]

11:13 AM on 01/11/2011

I live in Tucson, just a couple of miles from where this happened. My family planned on attending, but, didn't go at the last minute. Many of us here have long talked of cooling things down -last March, Rep. Giffords asked everyone to take a step back. It saddens me to see these requests to calm things down turned into political accusations. It is NOT one side or the other that is acting badly - both are. The vitriol and violent rhetoric is not just coming from one side, it's coming from both. And we ALL need to turn it down. There is no good reason why we can not disagree in a civil manner. After all, we are not ultimately Democrats nor Republicans - ultimately, we are Americans. We are suppose to be on the same side, the same team. No, the anger and vitriol did not cause these shootings - but it is well known that mentally ill people are among us in public forums, and that mentally ill people can be influenced by violent political speech and vitriol. Is it really to much to ask that all of us curb our anger and speech? It's such a little thing that we could all do to help and we don't even have to wait for the next election to make this change. We could just decide today to try and be a little nicer, to try and state our complaints a little more civilly. That's all Rep. Giffords

[StopThePlanet]

05:56 PM on 01/11/2011

I never seen anyone on the left call for violence.

[Jeff Kuentzler]

07:47 PM on 01/11/2011

Many many many examples here. I'm guessing you might not read it because the reality will actually cause you to think instead of believing what you're told to believe.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

[cmp1966]

08:49 PM on 01/11/2011

Who is more or less to blame is irrelevant to my point. I almost took my kids to this; I don't care who's the biggest or worst. Each of us know we share the public forum with the mentally ill. The one thing I know each of us can do - we don't have to wait for anyone, nor depend on someone else to do - is to chose to try to do better ourselves. To chose today, to be more polite, respectful, courteous. These aren't quaint, out-dated ideals; they're necessary mechanisms in society. The mentally ill are influenced by public emotion, violent speech. We share the public forum with them. It behooves us all to think about how & what we say. Nor is there any reason that saying this should lead to finger-pointing. We can make our point without that, can't we?

[BlueRager]

10:53 AM on 01/11/2011

- If cultural conservatives believe violent video games and comic books are dangerous because they can foment violence, why don't those same conservatives believe violent rhetoric broadcast on TV and radio won't do the same thing?

Similar to the previous answer, the cultural conservatives aren't particularly concerned with the morals of their ideology. For them you can use the same answer as above but substitute "salvation" for "profit." If salvation is the only goal of cultural conservatives, it really doesn't matter what sin you accept or reject. Again, it's a profit motif not a moral one. If redemption is available all upon repentance, the license to sin is absolute in these folks view. The gap between what the say and what they do simply widens…

[BlueRager]

10:52 AM on 01/11/2011

- Since the shooting, has a single conservative movement leader denounced violence-glorifying political rhetoric?

Yes, many of them. These leaders are politicians remember, and they only exist to serve their constituents, mostly by getting elected again. Sincere statements of principle are not in their DNA. Their denunciations of the violent rhetoric are perfunctory because the customers they are serving are violent and prone to over the top rhetoric.

The world they live in is carried along by a profitable media stream that is at its core a capitalist enterprise and as such, completely with out morals, good or bad. It's a for-profit movement that WILL take care of its bottom line. It sells over-wrought, over-the-top, sometimes-violent, borderline bigoted, hyper-active, wide-eyed "news." It's very successful and it will take a serious push back in the style of what's happening to Glen Beck to ever change the culture enough for it to trickle up to the leadership.

[txgrandpa6]

10:36 AM on 01/16/2011

The profit directed media still follows the old philosophy of "If it bleeds, it leads. Until each of us, as Americans, tune out this philosophy and cause the media to change its product we will continue to see the same violence prone narratives we see today. It really is that simple. As Americans we must demand more from our media centers than they are giving us. If the profits remain in the hysterical, violence prone, angry, disrespectful, than that is what they will provide us with. Wherever the profits are, that is where the media will go.

[laurenc]

10:51 AM on 01/11/2011

8:56 AM ET Political Rhetoric Not Connected To Shooting, Most Poll Respondents SayAs Political Wire notes, a CBS poll finds that nearly six in ten respondents do not blame the nation's political rhetoric for the Arizona shooting.

According to CBS, "Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did." Just under half of Democratic respondents said there was no connection between the two, while nearly 70% of GOP respondents thought the two are unrelated.

[StopThePlanet]

06:01 PM on 01/11/2011

People rationalize to reduce cognitive dissonance. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance