Jared Lee Loughner's motives are obscure, but it's hard to disentangle the shooting of a congresswoman, the killing of a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and four other people from the political culture that it occurred in, an environment of exaggerated divisions, the demonization of opponents as socialists or traitors, and a lot of gun rhetoric, gun imagery, and... guns. Almost certainly, history will tie the two together no matter what we learn about Loughner in the coming weeks. Political madness is a recurring strain in American history in which, on some level, we all take part: "I shouted out/Who killed the Kennedys?/When after all/It was you and me."
So, this is a collective problem. Pinning blame won't really work, because we end up back in the workings of Loughner's mind, which we don't understand right now, and may never. We're probably not going to find some triggering phrase in all the millions of nasty political words spoken in the past couple of years, either. See Ken Silber's reasoned take on rhetoric. Clearly, for instance, Sarah Palin was not inciting violence with her "rifle sights" (or "surveyor's symbol"), graphic, crass and obnoxious as it was. Sharron Angle, with her "Second Amendment remedies" quote, came right up to that line, however. But it's doubtful Loughner was paying much attention to a Nevada Senate race.
But we can identify some trends that created an atmosphere of exaggerated rhetoric and imagery that portrays political opponents as at best illegitimate and at worst enemies of America, that suggests tyranny and/or subversion are sources of our current political predicament, demanding some kind of armed response. In a culture where some have viewed spraying gunfire at innocent people as a ticket to immortality, it's not a healthy trend.
As Paul Krugman points out, the outre rhetoric is at the moment overwhelmingly a feature of the right. (That doesn't mean it always was, or always will be. But right now, the notion of left-right symmetry in this area doesn't hold up.) One source of this is the right's highly effective media-political complex, in which pro-Republican, anti-Democrat messages are tested, amplified and circulated with efficiency and alacrity. Cable talking heads and radio hosts compete to be outrageous, and are rewarded with attention and piles of cash the more outrageous they are.
Over the past two years, the short-term advantages of stoking the Republican base have created perverse incentives for politicians to go all-in with the outrage derby. Political leaders who are supposed to know better have mostly remained silent because all of this was working. The political media, which worships the appearance of mastery and aggression, mostly went along. It was politics, it was metaphorical, anything goes. In the process, they defined deviancy down.
As with the dysfunctional workings of Congress, this reflects an erosion not just of bipartisan comity and civility, but of basic, shared standards that American politics have operated on for decades. It's a symptom of a deeper breakdown that we're now grappling with, none too effectively. One way to start to fix it would be to take a deep breath and start thinking before speaking. Maybe this is that opportunity.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
Our society is also quite mean and violent. I teach in a public high school, and I see the way kids talk to each other and to teachers. We laugh at mean and rotten behavior on TV. We are discourteous and full of ourselves when we drive.Our sports (football in particular) is macho and violent. We cheer for a quarterback who tortured dogs. We invade other countries who don't do what we want. On and on.
Until we look at our collective, unsuitable behavor, this sort of thing is destined to repeat itself.
Just the past couple of years? Really John? Really?
2917.01 Inciting to violence.
(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:
(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;
(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.
Effective Date: 07-01-1996
people spending billions of dollars in advertising can influence people to buy their product but are unwilling to believe that violent rhetoric does not result in influence to a madman. I know people who listen to Rush, Glenn, Sarah and the rest and believe every word is the God's honest truth even when presented with proof that some things are not true. These people would not commit a violent act but the madman would. If you have EVER been persueded to buy a product you have seen advertised, then you have to believe that violent rhetoric, no matter how innocently said, could provoke and irrational act.
I'm not a fan of any of these people but we just don't know whether there's a real connection yet.
"Hyperbole, passion, and metaphor are beautiful parts of rhetoric. Marketplace of ideas can not be toned down for the insane. Killers need to restrain and be restrained, not speakers.
Free speech doesn't mean a radio host gets to incite murder or violence. The laws are there. Use them.
Here's one way: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
It's the FCC complaint form, to be used to report violations, including hate speech. The FCC is wholly complaint driven these days, so complain. Be sure to include announcer, inflammatory statement(s), time, date and the station where you heard it aired.
Krugman December 2009:
"By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
After the left got creamed the cabal that runs your party decided that "move on" was no longer the right mantra, so they came up with "no labels."
As in, "We just got our clocks cleaned using the old words, so we better come up with some new words and try to enforce a new tone."
Very succinct and observant of the current progressive/liberal speech tactics :)
Ain't gonna be pretty, and ain't gonna be fun.
What caused the attacks, what words or views were behind the mind of the man is more important then the action itself. The reason for this is those views and beliefs are still out there to be used by others and his actions will be seen by some, I hope just a very few, as a real way to express their hate and feelings of not having a voice in this country.
As the two absolute political parties and their talking heads vie for listeners perhaps it is time to also be able to make them, because of their words and actions accountable for such an act as this.
If you want a voice in this nation, a real voice that is American, one that has a middle ground where both parties are now extreme, you first need to ask if you think or yourself first as an American. If that is important to you then you may be willing to accept the idea that Americans need to be in Washington DC. Americans of the American party. With a new real voice for America we may be able to curb the words and stop killings.
Too late.
In keeping with a "never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste" mantra, the opportunity to further demonize political opponents/enemies permeated the media before the name of the perpetrator was even released, and long before the slightest info about his motives or mental health was known..... beginning with both "vitriolic" and oh-so-polite-and-thought-provoking over-generalized accusations towards the Right in general, Republicans in general, Conservatives in general, and even the State of AZ in general.
Collectively cleaning up the "outrage derby" and knee-jerk political "vitriol" will come much easier if it's accompanied by far less oh-so-polite, over-generalized collective accusations.and ad hominem commentary.
Yes.... let's ALL "take a deep breath and start thinking" before making over-generalized accusations, vitriolic or not, rehashing them as half-truths and/or false, and then lecturing about the "collective" causes of political ill will.