Monday, January 10, 2011

Today I Write to Piss Someone Off

Today I write because the compulsion is simply too great not to.

The horrible tragedy that befell our nation Saturday simply cannot be ignored. In a 24 hour news cycle of non-troversies and banal political banter, the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and the murder of 6 innocent bystanders is simply too horrific to let pass by, regardless of your political involvement or affiliation.

The question one has to ask in a situation like this is: why? Why did that young girl, recently elected to the student council, or those two 70 year-old churchgoing women have to lose their lives? What purpose did the gunman serve and why must six perfectly innocent people fall?

As for the deaths of the innocent victims, I'm afraid the only answer is that we live in a world full of imperfection. No one can truly say that their death was for some cosmic reason. Unfortunately, we live in a world where tragedy, suffering, and devastation can, and do, occur.

As for the gunman, Jared L. Loughner, and his purpose, we know a handful of things. First of all, the individual was mentally unstable (see the previous link). The question then becomes, why did he target Rep. Giffords? Aside from his rambling and incoherent political writings on government control and brainwashing, rumors are now circulating that his unhappiness with an answer to a forum question a few years ago lead him to loosely target the representative.

However, is one forum question enough to spark a tragedy like this? One cannot ignore the nature of our political rhetoric in these times; the vitriol, the hate, the violence, and the fear-mongering are simply so great that they've lead even rational individuals to see our government and our society in ways that were previously regarded as ramblings of the fringe. In an environment like this, with Tea Party Republicans and even some mainstream Republicans resorting to the most base of political tactics in order to win election, is it so far-fetched to believe that an individual like Loughner could be driven to violence if listening to and believing the rhetoric of a handful of over-the-top political pundits?

The answer historically is no. The murder of George Tiller, an abortion doctor in Kansas, revealed that Bill O'Reilly had targeted the doctor no less than 29 times since 2005. On a topic as contentious as abortion with such a robust history of violence, was O'Reilly directly responsible for the doctor's death? Certainly not. However, by keeping the figure in the public eye and combining that exposure with violent and hateful rhetoric, the pundit certainly did nothing to quell this sort of violence.

The attempted shooting at an Oakland Tides Foundation is another example, in which a shooter, in this case an avid listener of Glenn Beck, took his cues from the talk show host and acted on that language. Does Glenn Beck deserve credit for the shooting? Certainly not. However, the misrepresentation of the organization, hateful rhetoric, violent suggestions, to a wide viewership were certainly no hindrance to the violence on that day.

Returning to Loughner, the context of violence is also present. A Sarah Palin PAC pamphlet targeting Rep. Giffords with crosshairs and a Jesse Kelly campaign event in which attendees could shoot an M16 to "Get on Target" and "Remove Gabrielle Giffords" created a context of violence that, when provided for mentally disturbed individuals, certainly did nothing to prevent what happened this past Saturday.

Conservatives have scrambled to remove themselves from this discussion, but one cannot ignore the "2nd amendment solutions" and anti-government tilt of this past election season on the part of the Right. In an interview on Face the Nation, Senator John Kyl glossed briefly over the tragedy and then launched into a discussion of how we cannot rush to blame Republicans for the violence. I think they doth protest too much.

At the end of the day, the fact remains that while Republicans are not directly responsible for what occurred in Tuscon, it is simply irresponsible to throw around such revolutionary rhetoric when individuals like Jared Loughner are willing to take them to their logical conclusion. The beauty of this country lies in debate; we share our views and contest them without damage to each other or ourselves. That beauty is marred when a context of violence drives individuals to silence those they disagree with.

Embedding was disabled, however Bob Schieffer sums it up best in this Face the Nation monologue.

As someone with a public forum on which to post, I hope this post has rattled someone. I hope that my writings have shaken the discussion. Because frankly, without creating a conflict, how can we hope to discuss what can make our country a better place?

For Giffords, I write today to piss someone off as a demonstration of what makes our country great: moderated, intelligent, discussion.

1 comment:

John B said...

Nicely said. A lot of people are mad, and we should be. As another example check this out; http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2009/07/delegate_candidate_fight_dems.html

"A Virginia Republican's fierce call to resist President Obama's political agenda -- with bullets if necessary -- ignited an outcry on the Internet yesterday, and forced her to clarify that she was not looking to incite any violence.

Appearing at a "Tea Party" rally on Wednesday to protest President Obama's expansion of government, Catherine Crabill, a political neophyte running for the House of Delegates in the Northern Neck, quoted from a March 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then went further, calling on Americans to resist the course Obama has set for the country.

"We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box," Crabill said. "But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny."

How can you say comments like that aren't inflammatory? How can you say that comments like that won't lead to violence? Now that it's happened I refuse to let them off the hook.

Post a Comment