Since no one knows yet if right-wing rhetoric played any twisted — and wholly unintended — role in triggering Jared Lee Loughner’s horrific massacre, the discussion of the influence of that rhetoric is massively premature. But it is also unavoidable. I don’t think that questioning the possible role of political discourse in this tragedy merely represents callous opportunism on the part of the Left; it is a salutary human instinct after a tragedy of this dimension to search for any possible collective responsibility, even if that collectivity rarely includes oneself. And let’s not pretend that if a Republican politician had been shot during the Bush years, no one on the Right would have blamed anti-Bush “war criminal” rhetoric as a possible contributor. And of course, in such a scenario, almost all of the Left would have been just as outraged at being inculpated in an act over which it had no control. If a police officer is shot in cold blood, I myself am not immune from wondering if anti-cop rhetoric by left-wing activists fed into the murder.
Homicidal madness does not need political demagoguery to trigger the slaughter of innocent people. In the last year, there have been many mass killings that had no apparent political overlay. That does not mean, however, that demagoguery may not on rare occasions sometimes be part of that trigger. Indeed, rhetoric and ideas inevitably contribute to individual actions. The question then becomes, are the purveyors of extremist rhetoric at all responsible for the extremely rare violence that may result when a crazed individual takes their rhetoric as partial inspiration for murder? I don’t see a hard and fast answer here, or one that is independent of one’s politics. To deny any responsibility for rhetoric under any conditions without an inquiry into its content and context seems to me to be too hard and fast a position, and yet the very definition of “extremist rhetoric” is obviously in the eye of the beholder. One man’s preposterous exaggeration is another’s sober evaluation of reality. I find the charges that Obama hates America and intends to destroy it ludicrous and, yes, gratuitously inflammatory. And yet I know that many smart, sober people believe — in sincerest good faith — that such charges are literally true. By supporting the Arizona immigration law, I believe that I am merely standing up for the rule of law and for a sober evaluation of the facts on the ground. I would strenuously reject the charge that I am engaged in “hate speech,” yet that charge is also made in good faith. Sarah Palin’s bull’s-eye targets on Democratic districts disturb me; if I were a gun enthusiast, I might feel differently. And those targets pale in comparison to inflammatory political caricatures and cartoons from the past.
Extreme political rhetoric has always existed; today’s right-wing demagogues are no more fantastical in their predictions of doom and denunciations of the malign motives of their opponents than both right- and left-wing demagogues in centuries past.
So one can only engage in a highly context-specific, case-by-case evaluation. Is political violence becoming anything of a trend, or is it, as yesterday, a rare aberration? The more it looks like a trend, the more the responsibility might fall on the part of speakers to disclaim any possible sanctioning of violence. At this point, we are thankfully far from such a situation. I don’t think we are anywhere near the state where a fierce critic of Obama needs to add, “And by the way, I don’t want to kill him,” even if the possibility that someone could be so inspired cannot be completely dismissed.
If Loughner was at all inspired by political rhetoric, there is no way to completely prevent such horrible tragedies without restrictions that would shut off free society. Even saying that the best solution at this point is not to inhibit political speech but rather to try to intercept madness before it becomes homicidal, is a falsely reassuring panacea. Predicting such violence in individuals is almost impossible and there will be far more false positives than false negatives.
I would like to be able to say that the real reason to ratchet down the rhetoric is to bring it more in line with reality, not because it leads to murder. Yet, again, I recognize that for most people, their rhetoric is their reality. Nevertheless, it can’t hurt to scrutinize our speech for its conformity to the truth.
1. It would help a lot if the author would tell us what "right-wing" means to her in this context.
2. Responsible adults ought to watch their words no matter what in going on in society. This, however, is a lot different from watching other people's words (e.g., one political group scheming to shut another up "legally").
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well said. It is very understandable why people on the left have been so disturbed by some of the more over the top rhetoric the past few years. It can be scary at times and it adds absolutely nothing to any genuine political disagreements that citizens of the country may have. The fact is that this type of rhetoric can have consequences, particularly when it makes its way from conspiratorial underground newsletter and websites to the mainstream (watch Glenn Beck's 'expose' of George Soros if you don't believe me) This tragedy gives us a real chance as a country to tone it down a bit, if we want to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut what constitutes excessive rhetoric? That's one of my biggest problems with the boors and louts on the left trying to score political points out of this tragedy. "Targeting" politicians for defeat and painting "bullseyes" on them is not violent rhetoric. It's just not. It's the language we've always used to discuss politics.
What words could we use instead? "Let's go after Rep. X in the next election!"? Not the same ring. Not the same call to action, not as clear. We could say "focus," but you really have to say something longwinded, then, we're going to "focus on Rep. X for defeat next year."
"Targeting" is used in a wide variety of contexts. Drugs are "targeted" at particular receptors in the body. Marketers "target" particular demographics. "Bullseye" is just the center of a target.
There's plenty of rhetoric which could stand to be ratcheted down... but none of it has played any role in this tragedy, and the particular target of the left in the aftermath, Palin's brochure, was utterly unexceptionable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere average about 50 homicides each day in these United States. Miss MacDonald refers to the recent Tucson shooting as "...a tragedy of these dimensions".
And what, pray, are these dimensions? Were the lives taken in Tucson more significant than the other 40+ taken that day? Perhaps we should determine whether the Tucson shooting has any particular significance before we get all neck-deep in the swamp of debate around what any such significance might be. At first blush it seems to me that there's nothing substantial that distinguishes this handful of homicides from the other 18,000 we can expect this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ PatHMV
I agree that the examples you give don't sound too over the top on their own. But the problem becomes when that sort of talk coincides with some of the other rhetoric we've seen. Look at some of the other quotes we've seen during the past two years:
''He (Obama) has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,'' - Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
''I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?''
—Rep. Michelle Bachmann
''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''
—Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
~Sharon Angle
This kind of stuff has a cumulative effect. I think we can all agree that we can disagree without this type of imagery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for this! I haven't exactly disagreed with much of the commentary on this issue on The Corner the past two days, but it seemed to me that it was somehow missing an important point. Your post gets right to the heart of this, and I'm a bit disappointed that some other posters whose work I generally admire missed it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure there was a point in MacDonald's weak and uninformed attempts at moral equivalence between right and left rhetoric and actions. What was it? Anyone who remembers 1968 (or 1963 for that matter) knows we have gone through this all before and will again. It's always the right that gets it in the shorts, however. Recall when lovable Harry Truman (1948) compared republicans to National Socialist collaborators? We need examples and history. See the following and decide for yourself.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePat,
What about, "2nd amendment remedies" or "if we don't win with ballots we will win with bullets"
Do you consider these excessive rhetoric?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in the Corner (I hope that language isn't too... "vitriolic.").
"And let’s not pretend that if a Republican politician had been shot during the Bush years, no one on the Right would have blamed anti-Bush 'war criminal' rhetoric as a possible contributor."
I take issue with this blather.
Although Ms. Giffords isn't a Republican, she has been universally known as a "Blue Dog," conservative Democrat. As well, to the degree that we know much about the assailant, we know that others who know him have characterized him as a "left-wing pothead."
Yet, I see no right-wing talking heads or politicians on TV, radio, or in the blogosphere trying to pin the blame for this nutjob on the virulent, over-the-top rhetoric of the left (including certain Democrat presidents who talk about bringing guns to knife fights). I see no commentators on the right blaming the often-idiotic rhetoric of the left ("Bush = Hitler" and so on) for inspiring this clearly mentally-ill person to shoot a conservative Democrat (and a Republican judge), even though prior to his departure from reality, he appeared to be a lefty.
Why? Because folks on the right usually have enough decency and sense to understand that people who are psychotic who do terrible things are PSYCHOTIC, not political.
An interesting side note is that apparently our lefty friends at Kos announced the "targeting" Ms. Giffords, as well, for her sins and offenses against the liberal agenda.
Here's an interesting URL that documents some of the postings at DailyKos related to Ms. Giffords: External Link
Why aren't we blaming Kos et. al. for the attempted assassination?
Because it would be as idiotic to blame left-wingers for wanting to politically "target" folks for electoral defeat in elections as to blame right-wing folks for the same thing.
Sorry, the presumed moral equivalence of left and right in this screed of Ms. Mac Donald just doesn't wash.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMacDonald is usually sensible, but not here.
“I don’t think that questioning the possible role of political discourse in this tragedy merely represents callous opportunism on the part of the Left; it is a salutary human instinct after a tragedy of this dimension to search for any possible collective responsibility, even if that collectivity rarely includes oneself.”
No, it is not a salutary instinct; it is an indicium of having grown up in the era of Yoko Ono, who ludicrously claimed that we were “all” responsible for John’s death. (I think that remark of hers was the final blow to the puerile liberalism of my formative years.) Unless we live in an actual totalitarian state using actual brainwashing methods, no, we should not go searching for collective responsibility for the acts of people who are obviously evil, mad, or both. What an absurd thing for MacDonald to say.
“And let’s not pretend that if a Republican politician had been shot during the Bush years, no one on the Right would have blamed anti-Bush ‘war criminal’ rhetoric as a possible contributor.”
OK, let’s not pretend. Let’s just come right out and say that it would not have happened. More accurately, let’s just observe that there would surely be someone, somewhere, who would say such a thing, but that such a statement would not get any play in the press, and that it would be disowned by conservatives, who believe in individual responsibility.
Such rot from MacDonald.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but I have to refute your post. When Ronald Reagan was targeted by a person obsessed by a movie and a movie star, both arguable leftist institutions, no one on the right blamed the left for causing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've long suspected that Heather Mac Donald had a case of Palin Derangement Syndrome, and this article pretty much confirmed it for me.
Instead of simply agreeing that Palin's rhetoric is well within normal political discourse (as Jonah Goldberg has done), Heather goes off on a rambling post about the nuances of such rhetoric. She even suggests that Palin's rhetoric is somehow a cultural issue (when she notes that she might feel differently if she were a "gun enthusiast"). Well, culture has nothing to do with it; it's common political speech.
I wonder if Heather Mac Donald engaged in such nuanced hand wringing in her 2005 article on NRO, "Diversity Mongers ***Target*** the Web."
"TARGET"! Maybe Mac Donald is a gun enthusiast after all! Perhaps Heather didn't write the headline, but I doubt she reacted with such a hand wringing, nuanced approach to her own article.
And the word "monger" (in both the headline and article) could be rather extreme too, no? Wouldn't using the word "critic" instead "ratchet down the rhetoric ... to bring it more in line with reality"?? Oh well, I guess for Heather Mac Donald, her rhetoric is her reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRory, we can also do without claims that "Republicans want you to die faster." (Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL), and a similar long litany of "you haters hate America" diatribes aimed at Republicans by the President and others.
I don't particularly approve of many of those comments you cite, but again, they've nothing to do at all with this shooting. Nothing at all, and so it is both irrelevant and disgusting to use the shooting as an "occasion to reflect" on these issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Pat
You do not see a difference between, "Republicans want you to die faster" and we will use bullets or 2nd amendment remedies?
Grayson was discussing the health care bill and saying, with excessive hyperbole, the right doesn't care. His statement is no different than your death panel accusations but very different than encouraging his supporters to use guns against their enemies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that everyone should cool it with martial imagery in politics. A debate over health insurance regulation is not a "battle" or a "war." War is a horrible (if sometimes necessary) event in which children lose their parents, parents lose their children, and participants become physically and emotionally maimed forever. War is a grave undertaking, and we cheapen the sacrifices of those who participate in real wars by comparing debates over what the top marginal tax rate should be to events in which large groups of people attempt to kill and maim each other.
So yes, I welcome a discussion about the tone of and language/imagery used in political debates... *but not right now.* It's just too soon, for at least two reasons:
(1) We don't have any evidence to draw a causal connection between the "political climate" or "rhetoric" and this shooting. We've got nothing but self-serving speculation. If we're going to have a debate over political tone, we need to get our facts straight. Is the tone of our political debates leading to violence? i don't know, but by having this debate now, when the bodies are barely cold, we're tacitly admitting that it does. I refuse to concede that point until more facts are in.
(2) I don't have a problem with telling both sides to cool it with the violent imagery, but without some distance, the narrative will emerge (or remain) that imagery/rhetoric from *conservatives* was a contributing cause for this shooting when, again, there's no evidence to support that. If the argument is that Palin or Angle are partially and indirectly at fault for contributing to a poisonous political climate, well, then everyone is more or less equally at fault. Our president is the ash-kicker-in-Chief [really, language filter?] who talks about pulling out a gun when engaging with political opponents, and describes those political opponents as "enemies." That's part of the political climate. Andrew Sullivan's relentless amateur obstetrics practice is part of the political climate. A DailyKos diary stating that Giffords "is dead to me" is part of the political climate. Keith Olbermann calling average Republicans "the worst person in the world" is part of the political climate. *Any* of these things could trip the psychotic mind to do *anything*.
So if the "climate" is to blame, both sides have a lot of explaining to do. But having this debate now puts the bulk of the blame on Republican excesses, and it doesn't belong there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And let’s not pretend that if a Republican politician had been shot during the Bush years, no one on the Right would have blamed anti-Bush “war criminal” rhetoric as a possible contributor."
The Right might blame the anti-Bush rhetoric, but the MSM would say: A law abiding citizen exercised his 2nd Amendment right to oppose Bush's War on innocent Iraqis. The Republican politicians created a climate of hate and violence in supporting the illegitimate unjust war. The gunman was distraught to see on CNN millions of Iraqis being mowed down by our military and swore to avenge them. Nobel prize winning Economist Krugman wrote in the NYT, everyone saw it coming, you could not kill millions and expect no blow back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Is the tone of our political debates leading to violence? i don't know, but by having this debate now, when the bodies are barely cold, we're tacitly admitting that it does. I refuse to concede that point until more facts are in."
Well, I refuse to concede it, ever. You are not going to persuade people to stop using metaphors. Political contests have always been described as "battles," and they always will be. It would be absurdly prissy, as well as useless, to ban "war words" from the discourse. Only a lunatic would shoot someone on account of such metaphors, and such a person would find a reason to act regardless of the language of politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Heather's heart is in the right place on this one but history doesn't back her up. Martial and even extreme rhetoric have been a part of political campaigning and dialogue for a long time now. The rhetoric we're seeing these days isn't much different from some of the rhetoric of the past. The big difference is that we live in an age where the Internet and 24/7 cable magnify everything just a little bit more than the old Big 3/Newspaper MSM did.
Is Heather really arguing that the rhetoric of anti-war types in the 60's is less excessive than today's political speech.
If anything, there is far more hand-wringing about political speech these days than ever before. Part of this is the result of politicos jockeying for position. If you can limit the rhetorical devices and speech of your opponents, you can limit their effectiveness. For every criticism of a politician's speech on the basis of extremism, there should be one evaluating whether that criticism is legitimate or itself politically motivated.
People (including political columnists) are prone to using hyperbole once in awhile, and some people more than others. And some people will take hyperbole or even more common martial metaphors and imagery and try to twist the intent to serve their own political agenda.
The very fact people on the right have to spend so much time addressing this in the immediate aftermath of a horrible act of violence should give us a strong idea of what the motivations of many of those making the charge really are.
That many of them have engaged in the same kind of rhetoric (or worse) that they decry, should clarify our understanding even more.
I think Heather's isn't far from this point, but for me, her post gives the critics on the left far more of a benefit of the doubt than it should Palin and some others on the right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCDO wrote:
"You do not see a difference between, 'Republicans want you to die faster' and we will use bullets or 2nd amendment remedies?"
Well, *I* do, but the psychotic often cannot make that distinction. If you're going to blame the political climate or the state of political discourse in this country for this shooting, then *everyone* who contributed to it is at fault.
Would you be surprised if a psychotic took Grayson's statement to mean that the Republicans were coming to kill him, and took a violent, preemptive act? We now know that Loughner hated Giffords as early as 2007. Would you be surprised if we found out that his sick mind interpreted Barack Obama's call to "punish your enemies" as a charge to kill Giffords?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer heart is in the right place? Would you say that about Yoko Ono when she blamed all of us (including herself) for John's murder (to repeat my example)?
Sorry, I can't really distinguish heart from mind in these instances of juvenile maundering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse