It doesn’t require actual violence for leftists in America to malign the Right as bloodthirsty. So fertile are their imaginations — or so flexible their ethical constraints — that even the most orderly and irenic gathering can be twisted into something sinister. Throughout the spring and summer of 2009, as peaceful Tea Party protesters, clutching their copies of the Constitution, demonstrated against what they regarded as government overreach, the Left erupted with bug-eyed warnings that the movement was inciting violence and extremism.
Actual violence isn’t necessary for the Left’s campaign to slander the Right, but it is useful. Former president Clinton, with the help of the left-leaning press, cynically pinned responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing on “talk radio.” Because conservative talk shows expressed hostility to big government, he argued, they were creating a “climate of hate” that inspired Timothy McVeigh.
Advertisement
Strangely, the Left never perceived a link between the rhetoric of Al Gore and the violence of environmental-extremist “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, or, say, the anti-free-trade stance of American labor unions and the anti-globalization riots that have accompanied all of the IMF and World Bank meetings of the past several years.
Last year, liberal politicians and commentators urged the nation to refrain from jumping to conclusions when Maj. Nidal Hassan, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” gunned down 45 fellow soldiers (killing 13). But when it suits their preferred narrative, liberals jump most eagerly, and it must be said, contemptibly, to conclusions.
When an obviously deranged killer (of no coherent political persuasion) gunned down a dozen people over the weekend in Tucson, liberals in the press permitted no space for civility or decency. The temptation to metaphorically dip their hands in the blood of Gabrielle Giffords was overpowering. Even as the victims were being rushed to the hospital, commentators from the New York Times, CNN, and other outlets were suggesting that conservative, anti-government attitudes were responsible for the bloodshed. Sarah Palin came in for extra licks.
Tom Ashbrook, host of NPR’s On Point, was explicit in blaming conservatives. “It’s a Democratic congresswoman who’s been shot through the head!” he protested when a guest (this columnist) noted that both liberals and conservatives obviously condemn violence. Well, yes. And it’s a tragedy. But would it be any different if a Republican had been shot? Ronald Reagan was nearly killed by a similarly mentally ill gunman. Did anyone suggest that liberals or Democrats encouraged or inspired John Hinckley?
The “tone” of our politics has become so inflamed, they lament. But they really don’t mean “our” politics, they mean conservatism. There was no hand-wringing by liberals during the past decade when leftist protesters routinely shouted for George W. Bush’s blood (see binscorner.com). Look, the world would be a better place if everyone toned down the vitriol — but it wouldn’t make a particle of difference when it comes to gun violence.
And that’s what is being obscured by this focus on political rhetoric. We do have a serious problem with gun violence. We have a particular problem with unbalanced people who decide to shoot up a school or shopping mall or political event to achieve — however fleetingly — fame. Some part of the blame for this sickness must be laid at the feet of the media, whose blanket coverage of such events encourages the lunatics. Another part of the blame may belong to an entertainment culture that glorifies and glamorizes gun violence. Every society has mentally ill people. But the way paranoid schizophrenics and other mentally impaired people choose to behave is influenced by culture.
Neither of those aspects of our society is likely to change. But a third feature — our legal framework for handling those who resist treatment — can and should change. Widespread deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, along with laws that require proof of dangerousness before a person can be involuntarily subjected to treatment, make it exceedingly difficult to stop a crazed gunman before his murderous spree. In the Tucson case, as in the Virginia Tech case, others noticed the gunman’s oddity in advance but were unable to force him to get treatment. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws, if enforced, can radically reduce the number of hospitalizations, incarcerations, and violent episodes among those required to participate. A misplaced respect for personal autonomy — the right to reject treatment — arguably carries too high a price, particularly now when pharmacological treatment is so benign, and when the kinds of crimes committed by the untreated mentally ill are so heinous.
Attributing some of the blame to the media is often overlooked. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a strict societal injunction that the name of an assassin was forbidden to be spoken or written. Thus, they deprived an aspiring killer of the motivation for infamy. He was certain his name would be consigned to oblivion. While it is impossible to imagine a similar condition in our modern age, it is still useful to marvel at the wisdom of such a civic policy and to realize there is something we moderns could learn from those primitive ancients.
Before we get too mired down in the left's language of mental illnesses, we should remind ourselves that murder is sin. When we look at it that way, it frees us from the baggage that the left would like to weigh us down with and is much easier to deal with. Anyone who takes a life with malice and intent should forfeit their own.
We have politicized mental illness to the point that we care more about protecting the privacy of individuals than of identifying and requiring treatment for paranoid schizophrenics.
The school identified Jared Loughner as a potential threat and required that he undergo mental evaluation in order to continue in attendance but due to privacy laws or PC there was evidently no public record of this was made.
Thus there was nothing in the FBI data base when his background was checked prior to purchasing a gun.
The government's left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing and it cost 6 lives.
I too, mused aloud as further details of this shooter became known; "How could he possibly acquire a handgun legally?"
This opens an entire can of worms however, as I am slowly beginning to believe ALL our government agencies operate in this lackadaisical fashion.
The perception is that they care, while the reality is just the opposite.
Additionally, I have the misfortune to have several relatives and close friends who are fiercely liberal, and they have echoed - without exception - the sentiments heard on national media.
It's all Sarah Palin's fault - their blood is on her hands.
Truly appalling.
Sadly, there is no talking any sense into these people - so angry are they over the current state of affairs - and I truly wonder if their emotional states are much far removed from the gunman himself?
It fills me with trepidation and dread for the days to come.
Imagine this: at a future murder spree, when not a thing is known about the perpetrator, who would be blamed? Sarah Palin, for the crazed murderer must "obviously" be a supporter of hers, urged on by her "right wing hate speech".
At a press conference 48 hours later the police reveal the following:
During the crime he was wearing a series of shirts over top of one another:
1. Bush Lied, People Died.
2. Kill Pigs.
3. 9/11 was an Inside Job.
4. Death to Israel.
5. Obama Nation Rules!
6. Communism is the Way.
7. Che Guevara Rocks!
8. One Dead Conservative is a Good Start.
9. Less Reagan, More Mao.
10. Stalin was just Misunderstood.
An examination of his wallet found him to be an active member of these organizations:
1. The Democrat Party of America.
2. Socialists International.
3. The Communist Party USA.
An examination of the browsing history of his computer revealed him to be a frequent visitor to the websites of MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Daily Kos. At the latter site he was a prominent blogger regularly condemning the Tea Party and conservative talk radio.
After all of his "credentials" were revealed, who would be blamed? Sarah Palin, for her "right wing rhetoric" pushed him over the edge and radicalized him to carry out the violence.
DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WOULD OCCUR?!?
Very interesting.
The school nurse (viz., not a psychiatrist, or even an MD conducting an interview in-depth) decides that he's disruptive, and requires him to prove he isn't.
Of course they're not allowed to make this public - it's slander and libel, because they're mistaking their perfunctory and unqualified opinion for medical fact.
My first thought would be to bankrupt the school district as a Civil Rights violation. Evidently, he had not the competence or resources to accomplish this.
I'm in favor of treatment, even mandatory treatment, for those for whom a legal diagnosis (generally, 2 doctors with psychiatric specialty) of "poses an immediate danger to themselves or others" has been made.
However, the safeguards against a false positive are not really sufficient - a temper tantrum is enough to have you committed (please: just take my word for it; it's not common but it happens far more frequently than is reported).
On the other hand, once in custody, the likelihood of a false negative (being pronounced competent) is high, since psychiatric medicine has a basic underlying precept that:
1. all doctors are smarter than all patients
2. all patients lie
3. but all doctors can catch them
When this proves to be not merely wrong, but ridiculously wrong (the patent says "I'm lots better know - thank you so much!", and is released), doctors accept no blame, admit no error, policy is not changed.
Not sure?
Google "Adam Berwid"
In summary: treatment is an answer, but not as currently practiced.
Amen! With all the fabricated hysteria and cries to control the "rhetoric", this is actually the one glaring issue out of this tragedy that is crying out for a remedy. The solution (as much as there is one) is not further erosion of our 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights; but, to get these disturbed and dangerous people off the streets and into treatment that will help both them and public safety.
Ms. Charen,
You acknowledge the obvious fact that mentally ill individuals threaten our collective well-being, but timidly ignore big questions. As Conservatives, we value individualism over collectivism. So how do we ensure public safety without Big Brother locking up anyone who shouts - I'm mad as hell & I'm not going to take it anymore!-?
How do we pay for changes in requisite Public Mental Health-Care Programs to provide treatment for those who, left untreated WILL harm themselves and/or others?
How do we maintain our 2nd Amendment guaranteed freedoms without also arming lunatics?
If State sponsored/sanctioned gambling industries can fund gambling treatment programs, why can't firearms & ammo sellers fund public-safety administered psych'-treatment programs?
Y'all'er like the mice saying there should be a bell around the neck of the cat. But not one of you has the stones to volunteer to put it there. Show some courage next time. Tell us about how much needs to be spent to address this critically important aspect of public safety, and give us an idea how to pay for it. Otherwise don't waste our time.
BTW, did you meet the minimum words requirement for the article?
Blaming anyone is not a worthy intention, but that is the level being displayed most prominently and will result in no change, as usual. The culpability of Palin, Beck and Limbaugh can't be measured or proved, but their CYA mentality of checking their rhetoric (and blog space) in the immediate aftermath is certainly proof of at least a guilty conscience.
The problem, panic, is that we can't medicate patients for long involuntarily who have been found incompetent repeatedly, who have a history of violence, have multiple suicide attempts, etc.
The heck with the subtle cases---we aren't allowed to do this with the worst.
Appreciate the snide comments about psychiatrists. What I do for a living has nothing to do with what you watch on TV. As for the ISOLATED temper tantrum resulting in commitment---bull. I've been doing this for over 2 decades and I've never seen it.
As the child of a schizophrenic mother, I watched her descent into madness, thanks to the present legal restrictions limiting involuntary treatment to ONLY those deemed a danger to themselves or others. My very bright and talented mother wound up on the street, losing everything, including her vision, due to her paranoid beliefs. When one of her children (with all our support) took her to court to have her committed against her will for treatment, the psychiatrist agreed that she was delusional and diagnosed her as schizophrenic, but the judge ruled that while he agreed with the diagnosis, she did not fit the definition of "gravely disabled" under the law, and he let her go. She promptly disappeared, and none of her children knew where she was.
I wrote to her defense attorney expressing my concern about how this case was handled and he wrote me back asking how I would like to be constrained against my will. My answer? If I believe I am the rightful heir to the throne of England or that a "monstrous machine" under a hospital is controlling my thoughts, by all means - constrain and help me so I don't lose EVERYTHING.
The laws with regard to treating the mentally ill need to be changed. Schizophrenics, especially, can be very dangerous when untreated. It is a sad state of affairs when it's considered compassionate to allow them to wind up untreated and living on the street. To me, that's not compassion; it's selfish complacency.
There must be balance, and our present laws do not reflect that necessity.
Very well said. In a free society horrible acts of violence will occur. It is not guns nor words nor maps that cause these acts but rather severely disturbed individuals.
Their actions are by definition insane - no sane person would commit these acts.
The alternative is to preemptively identify and remove these people from society. Where would the left stand on that?
I wouldn't object if Mona were the person deciding my sanity but I fear that it might be the CEO of Acorn or SEIU or some thug from the Rohm Emanual Machine. THAT'S the problem with her idea - not the subjects of the inquiry but the judges.
Anybody who has ever had any experience with a paranoid schizophrenic knows that they would see shadows of conspiracy in the Sahara at high noon. Throw bipolar disorder into the mix and you have a powder keg of potential maniac behaviour. This has been going on since the dawn of mankind.
The behaviour is easy to see once you scrape the surface but impossible, in a politically correct world, to simply call someone crazy. Paranoid schizophrenics can be incredibly intelligent, the one I knew was Mensa level. He knew how to push back. Nevertheless, he's one moment away from pushing a bystander off a train platform and nobody you tell in positions of authority are willing to consider that somebody might actually be crazy..... Nope they always play the victim card..... it's not his fault it's societies fault, it's your fault. After this experience I've come to believe that evil exists and it's malevolence holds no bounds, let alone party affiliation. A re-run of the Mickey Mouse Club could set him off......
I'm confused. You tell us we should be having a discussion about the mentally ill, yet you spend the majority of your article talking about the left's obfuscation of the thing you want to talk about.
How about having the discussion you want without wasting all this 'we are so vilified' BS? There will always be nuts on the left who engage in this sort of stuff (just as there are nuts on the right as well).
Ignore the foolishness, stop whining about the persecution and get on with a productive discussion.
All schizophrenics suffer from confused thinking but far fewer than all of them are dangerous. If the individual schizophrenic's underlying personality is violent he/she can be dangerous. If the underlying personality is benign (as in most cases) he/she will simply act in a bizarre fashion on occasion.
Many of the benign but bizarre-acting type find themselves in trouble with the law due to minor law-breaking and inability to effectively participate in their own defense. Many of the more threatening type, on the other hand, somehow seem all too often to avoid appropriate incarceration.
Far more schizophrenics are a danger to themselves than to others by means of suicide, accidental self-endangerment, or association with anti-social "friends" who turn out to be criminals.
For those who ARE dangerous to themselves or others but not sufficiently so as to be institutionalized the best answer is probably guardianship by a responsible person. This usually requires the enlightened cooperation of a judge not only to obtain the guardianship but to secure orders for involuntary treatment when recommended by the guardian.
Perhaps the most difficult problem in dealing with a schizophrenic individual is his/her unwillingness to take anti-psychotic medication. They generally tend to hate the personality-altering and mental slowdown effects of so-called "major tranquilizers."
Yes, some psychiatrists are themselves in apparent need of treatment, and all too many of the various social workers seem more interested in their own careers than in the individual undergoing treatment. Most professionals, however, have the right motivations. The ideas expressed by other commenters to the effect that one incident of losing control will doom a person to commitment strike me as ridiculous. In my experience the bigger problem is getting authorities to take responsibility for doing something even when obviously needed.
My comments are based on experience and direct observation plus extensive interaction with professionals, not mere personal opinions or hypotheses.
The primary mystery surrounding Loughner is why, in light of his history of threatening behavior, law enforcement hadn't taken prior action against him. Blaming others for setting him off is both false and foolish, and remind me of John Kennedy's assassination being originally blamed on anti-communists.
As a liberal, I'm pleasantly surprised to read a proposal for more government intervention in NRO! Over the past 40 years, governments have gradually gotten out of the mental hospital business and there are now very few beds set aside for the mentally ill. I believe most Western countries need to re-adopt a more paternalistic approach to psychotic patients, particularly non-compliant, paranoid schizophrenic young men who are at most risk of harming themselves or others. Some need to be committed to hospitals, compulsorily if necessary. Others can be treated in the community but only with proper monitoring. One way to ensure better compliance is for nurses to administer medication by injection, e.g. Clopixol, rather than depending on patients to take tablets themselves. The mentally ill are frequently not attractive patients and they have lost out to other groups in the fight for resources. Governments have been more than willing to adopt a 'community care' model simply to save money. This must be set right.
Thank you, Ms. Charen, for highlighting this important topic. While we should always be circumspect about "forcing" anyone to do anything, we also have a more important obligation to help those who repeatedly show themselves to be self-destructive and unable to help themselves.
The Assisted Outpatient Treatment that you refer to is effective for many that would otherwise need to be institutionalized. Most schizophrenics are not violent, but the majority need someone to persuade, and sometimes compel, them to accept needed treatment.
I would like to respectfully remind everyone that we have limits on civil commitment for a reason. A look back in time before civil commitment had so many limits is enlightening.
As a person with a serious, persistent mental illness, I dread reading about shootings like this because I know what it is like to be coerced into treatment, expected to take medications that are not necessarily benign while dealing with stigma and bias. Not every person with a mental illness lacks insight.
If I had reliable, affordable access to treatment that worked well without causing serious side effects, treatment protocols that were not influenced more by pharmaceutical marketing plans than evidence-based medicine and a supportive social environment where I did not have to hide my illness, management would be so much easier. No, I don't own a gun. I also don't tell anyone that I have a mental illness unless I absolutely have to. I don't know the answers but I made sure to understand civil commitment law, right to treatment and therapeutic jurisprudence.
Community mental health is often a chaotic, disjointed mess. If we had stronger civil commitment laws, I doubt we would have the infrastructure to accommodate them or the money in the state budgets to pay for all the very expensive drugs used to treat them.
Follow
