We've all by now heard much about the assassination attempt of a Democratic Congresswoman in Arizona earlier today. It's worth noting that this Congresswoman was one of 20 Congress people put in the gun sights of a Sarah Palin posting on one of her new media sites. Conservatives are now on the defensive trying to show how this assassination attempt was the work of a deranged, disturbed individual -- and that ideology has nothing to do with it. Well, perhaps.
But here's the thing conservatives need to know: when one of the 20 Congress people put in the gun sights of a Sarah Palin online media posting, or whatever it was, ends up the victim of a brutal assassination attempt, you have to expect that such connections between actual assassination attempts and the figurative calls for them are going to be drawn. The lesson is pure and simple: don't put people, figuratively or otherwise, in the gun sights. It just encourages the nuts. And that's why this narrative of Second Amendment remedies, spilling blood in the cause of freedom, "shooting down" your electoral opponents, etc., -- narratives that have come almost exclusively from the right wing in this country -- is just completely irresponsible. And it has nothing to do whether this guy was a loony or a Tea Partier or an anarchist or whatever. Hinting at armed violence as a means to resolve political disputes is just wrong. Period.
If there were nothing at all untoward in advancing such notions, even figuratively, why then are all such references being hastily taken down? Couldn't be some residual sense of guilt, could it? Couldn't be some nagging awareness that such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric of politically-motivated violence just might have encouraged this nut, could it?
I think people, deep down, understand this; and I think it took something like today for people who defended this use of inflammatory narratives and imagery of armed political violence as harmless expressions of free speech are only just now looking in the mirror and saying: "Oh, sh*t! We really have crossed the line!"
I've said it many times, both on this blog and in comment threads, criticizing the tolerance of such rhetoric on the right wing, that words and imagery of violence do have consequences and do encourage the behavior of others, especially those disturbed individuals prone to act out such narratives.
The rhetoric and sophistry around this tragedy just disgusts me, from both sides. If you want to argue that this wouldn't have happened had Palin not run the crosshairs ad, feel free. I think you are right that we'll see a step down from those kinds of ads, but only because our thinking is shallow on the subject and this provide an easy answer. But we will see more instances of political violence, even with toned down rhetoric, and here's why: The truth is there are political issues that will (and always have) drive unstable people to murder, and we have been flirting with more and more of those issues. As our society creates more and more people with an axe to grind and nothing to lose, you can fully expect to see more of this, regardless of what kind of ads politicians run during campaign season.
ReplyDeleteEric - I'll apply my criticism to both the left and the right -- basically to anyone who promotes the narrative of violence as a remedy for political disputes. I don't know if this would have happened had Palin run the crosshairs ad or not, but it's clear to me that it could have. And that's enough to question the responsibility of putting such things out there.
ReplyDeleteWe all have axes to grind, Eric. All of us. And that's always been the case. But we've never seen this kind of political violence in our recent history. And though I'm sure the left wing is quite capable of inciting such violence, I can't think of a single case where the rhetoric and narrative that flirts even with justifying such brutal violence as a remedy for political disputes has come from the left wing -- even the fringe left wing.
And while you may be correct that we can fully expect to see more of this, I would argue that it's precisely because of this that makes any encouragement by our so-called ideological leaders of types that would do such things all the more doubly irresponsible. You chalk it up to shallow thinking, but I have to ask why it is that we think so shallowly? Our leaders, demagogues that they are (and I think this applies to both the left and the right, though I think it's more prevalent on the right), encourage shallow thinking, demand it, revel in it. Folks like Sarah Palin glory in shallow thinking and elevate it to some kind of admirable thing.
If we do see more of this kind of thing, I would say that it's for lack of leadership in reaching for our higher angels. We can grind our axes without literally shooting people's brains out, don't you think?
Finally, we have plenty to lose if this narrative of violence dominates our political landscape. We stand to lose the bond between our elected leaders and the people. We stand to lose things about our democracy that are critical its proper functioning. We even stand to lose more and more of our freedom and liberty.
"I can't think of a single case where the rhetoric and narrative that flirts even with justifying such brutal violence as a remedy for political disputes has come from the left wing -- even the fringe left wing."
ReplyDeleteRemember that the next time you see someone wearing a Che t-shirt.
"I would argue that it's precisely because of this that makes any encouragement by our so-called ideological leaders of types that would do such things all the more doubly irresponsible."
I agree political leaders shouldn't be encouraging people to go shoot politicians down in the street. The next time one tells a group of constituents to go do that, you let me know.
"You chalk it up to shallow thinking, but I have to ask why it is that we think so shallowly?"
Because deep thinking is hard, and we don't do hard things in America anymore. You can blame it on Palin, I prefer to fault parents, popular culture, and a shitty education system. Either way, it's where we are right now, and the argument that this shooting was caused by political rhetoric is proof positive of that. It's the simplest explanation to a much more complex issue, so it becomes the narrative, even though there is zero proof that rhetoric had anything to do with this mans actions. Because not knowing (or pretending to know) scares us much more than being wrong. Shallow thinking in action.
"We can grind our axes without literally shooting people's brains out, don't you think?"
Historically, some people cannot or will not. And in times of political and social upheaval, those people seem to increase in number. We are in the midst of such times, hence, tragedies are likely. Frankly, we are lucky it doesn't happen much more often. In other cultures it does.
"Finally, we have plenty to lose if this narrative of violence dominates our political landscape."
I'm much more worried about our spending, our education, our economy, our ability to do big things, than I am any so-called narrative of violence. When I hear politicians instructing their supporters to go out and harm people, I'll change my mind. Until then, the only narrative I see surrounding yesterday's events is a disgustingly cynical one perpetrated by both sides to make the other look like something it is not. I hope you'll quit adding to it.
"I can't think of a single case where the rhetoric and narrative that flirts even with justifying such brutal violence as a remedy for political disputes has come from the left wing -- even the fringe left wing."
ReplyDeleteRemember that the next time you see someone wearing a Che t-shirt.
"I would argue that it's precisely because of this that makes any encouragement by our so-called ideological leaders of types that would do such things all the more doubly irresponsible."
I agree political leaders shouldn't be encouraging people to go shoot politicians down in the street. The next time one tells a group of constituents to go do that, you let me know.
"You chalk it up to shallow thinking, but I have to ask why it is that we think so shallowly?"
Because deep thinking is hard, and we don't do hard things in America anymore. You can blame it on Palin, I prefer to fault parents, popular culture, and a shitty education system. Either way, it's where we are right now, and the argument that this shooting was caused by political rhetoric is proof positive of that. It's the simplest explanation to a much more complex issue, so it becomes the narrative, even though there is zero proof that rhetoric had anything to do with this mans actions. Because not knowing (or pretending to know) scares us much more than being wrong. Shallow thinking in action.
Is anyone actually "looking in the mirror" and thinking their rhetoric "crossed the line"? That would be pretty amazing, but I'm skeptical it's actually happening.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I have issues too with the hyper agressive rhetoric that increasingly dominates our political culture, but pretending (again, with a complete and total absence of evidence) it is responsible for Saturday's events is not the answer, and in fact will only serve to exacerbate such talk by people who now see threats to their first and second amendment rights. Rhetoric on both sides routinely "crosses the line", but the result of that isn't that people get shot, it is that they intellectually disengage from eachother, they fail to continue to debate eachother in good faith. In these trying times, when vigorous debate is sorely needed, that's a serious enough consequence... we don't need to invent new ones.
ReplyDelete