Despite the temptation to join the grief-stricken chorus of blame, I do not believe that flame-fanners and spleen-suppliers like Sarah Palin, et al., are responsible for the tragic events in Tucson. Rather, the incendiary rhetorical devices they've used -- from gun sights over congressional districts to the invocation of "Second Amendment remedies" as viable tactics for change -- make these demagogues irresponsible about the consequences of their allusions. Words do have power, and thus should be used cautiously, but the notion of linking those words with the actions of others and ascribing blame for their remote consequences is a dangerous slippery slope that could have a chilling effect on all of our First Amendment rights.
Don't get me wrong, speech has its limits. The direct incitement to violence, for instance, has long been understood as beyond the purview of freedom of speech. But the nexus between speech and action is key to invoking this limit, requiring both spatial and temporal investigations to determine culpability. A speech given to a rabid audience telling people to "get out there and start shooting" is quite likely over the line, but a more general statement telling listeners to "get out there and fight" for something is almost certainly not. Statements made through public channels are even more remote, and although they might include rhetoric intended to instigate political activity, the closeness of the fit between word and deed is a tenuous proposition at best.
This is most definitely not to absolve Palin, Angle, Bachmann, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh and their ilk for their combustible calls to confrontational action. Undoubtedly, both at the national level and in Arizona in particular, there has been an overall climate of fear and rage fomented that serves as the powder-keg backdrop to horrific events like the Tucson massacre. Yet we ought not entirely abandon the notion of personal responsibility in the process, unless we are willing to do the truly difficult work of looking in the societal mirror and ascribing blame to a culture of violence in which we all participate. As asinine as their rhetoric may be, stopping at the Palins of the world when seeking responsible parties for tragic acts doesn't reflect the deeper context in which we are all operating as consumers, taxpayers, and voters.
Yes, Palin's gun sights are provocative and misguided. But every corner store and suburban living room is stocked with mass media, movies, and video games that are similarly violence-prone in their imagery. Maximally liberal gun laws such as those in Arizona (an interesting irony, given the state's avid conservatism) don't help matters, nor does the evisceration of public infrastructure for education and health care that might serve to provide a safety net for troubled young loners with the potential to erupt. Simply put, Sarah Palin didn't create Jared Lee Loughner, any more so than all of us did. Still, she knew, or should have known, that people like him were out there -- and even if it turns out that he wasn't a fan of her political positions whatsoever, he grew up in a culture dominated by voices like hers fanning the reactionary flames of irresponsible discontent.
Are there things to be metaphorically "up in arms" about in our society? Of course, and the list is long. But to pretend that Palin isn't part of the ruling elite (and thus ostensibly "part of the problem") as opposed to her self-construction as an anti-elite crusader, is to dangerously "misunderestimate" (to quote the quintessential example) the lockstep power of the media in constructing our shared reality. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had it right when he cited the combination of a pervasive culture of vitriolic software with readily-available Second Amendment hardware as part of the locus of blame for what happened in Tucson (and what too often happens to smaller or larger degrees in cities across America). Yet in the process of identifying the problem, we should take care not to create a new narrative that in turn demonizes others and thus continues the cycle of escalating antipathy.
We can break this cycle by refuting the twisted logic of the sycophants agitating for insurrection without any real regard for positive transformation, and likewise by repudiating those in our midst who resort to divisiveness and hatred in their words and deeds. This is not censorship, mind you -- but refutation and repudiation, consistent with the best of the First Amendment tradition suggesting that the primary antidote to harmful speech is more speech to counter it. Indeed, the oft-repeated malapropism of "refudiate" seems to cover it quite well. Now if Sarah Palin would just take her own advice and disavow all future incitement to even implied violence, we might actually find ourselves on a "bridge to somewhere" for a refreshing political change of pace.
Follow Randall Amster on Twitter: www.twitter.com/randallamster
If she does this, her media career is over, and her handlers know it; what they're undoubtedly trying to determine is how to spin overt renunciations of violence as covert calls to it that her core audience will catch.
It's not so difficult; in the '30s the German government successfully convinced England's Chamberlain that it wasn't their fault if other countries were governing German lands; it was the Czech oppression of the German population there that needed addressing, surely; there was something wrong with history that had made Austria independent from Germany, and that's what needed correction - but all the Germans wanted were peace and justice - which the Germans themselves knew was untrue, what they wanted was revenge for Versailles.
So Palin's rhteoric will become more convoluted, but it will not lose its violent undercurrent - that is what her audience wants from her, making threats is what she gets paid to do.
The use of military metaphors have been around forever in in politics (and in corporate marketing since the 80s.)
As for that target map, it was an imitation of maps developed and used by the Democratic Leadership Committee and most recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
When those who have the platforms to influence others, choose the animal instead of the human to form and deliver information, we, the people, are 'lowered' (at least int their eyes) to animals, who are not capable of intellectual thought.
We need to let them know that we are capable of thinking and that their approach is not what we choose. We can transcend the the animal that they (Rush, Sarah, and others) think we are. We can hear "Death Panels" and do our own research to learn that they are 'wrong' in inciting us with their opinion which is not based on facts.
It is time for us to boycott those who only see us as animals and demand we be treated as cognizant thinking beings who want to build a better world for everyone on this planet.
Unfortunately, there is quite a number of Americans (followers of Rush, Sarah and others) who are not free thinkers and their culture is that of being blind followers, and maybe there is nothing that can be done about that. Teaching an old dog new tricks is quite a task.
Fantastic!
Is it wrong to ask conservatives - who are the most likely to trumpet the notion of "personal responsibility" - to TAKE responsibility in these kinds of circumstances?
For example, Ms. Palin was asked NOT to use her gun-sight imagery, repeatedly, because it was stated - by Ms. Giffords, no less! - that such images can have consequences. Ms. Palin refused.
Until less than 48 hours ago, when suddenly she decided, "Gee, maybe that graphic isn't all that wonderful to have up on my website anymore."
Shouldn't we be asking her to take responsibility for her irresponsible graphic? I'm not saying her graphic CAUSED this individual to shoot Ms. Giffords and nearly two dozen others. But when speech or rhetoric or graphics are just simply WRONG, should we not point that out, loudly and persistently? I'm not blaming Ms. Palin - though a tenuous, but real, line can be drawn from the graphic to the shooter, she is not responsible for him pulling the trigger.
But the metaphorical "shouting in his ear" by using such imagery is CERTAINLY irresponsible. Shouldn't Ms. Palin, at MINIMUM, take responsibility for her actions, and denounce her own graphic as being wrong?
Keith Olbermann admitted his wrongdoings. Ms. Palin should do the
Who's to Blame? Anyone of us who may feel that we should abridge our liberties for a single act thereby granting power to the power hungry...Please read the following lines from a well written script V for Vendetta..
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you,
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
" Rather, the incendiary rhetorical devices they've used -- from gun sights over congressional districts to the invocation of "Second Amendment remedies" as viable tactics for change -- make these demagogues irresponsible about the consequences of their allusions. "
I am an education 66 year old with a masters degree and your writing makes no sense. If you say P is not to be blaimes but the rhetorical devices she uses are wrong,,,,,,what are you saying? You are mixed up. Palin is wrong to use the hate fulled talk, which most does not even make sense!
As if all the other terrorists in the world are/were perfectly sane and happy.
It's not a coincidence that the group hoarding guns and advocating "second amendment remedies" (as more than one TP candidate did during the 2010 campaign) produces more shooting rampage perpetrators than the one that tells people to shame its opponents by donating to charities (as Olbermann periodically does), and the media are not being impartial by pretending that it is.
that was an innuendo ?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
But, if you think that is a problem, then here's a much worse one from Sharron Angle, in a context that actually implies a call to violence against a specific political target:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html