The unsettling nature of the attempted assassination of U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the murder of her aide Gabe Zimmerman, nine year old Christina Green, Judge John Rose and three others, shock and haunt the national psyche at a very raw emotional level.
And interestingly enough, not just because of the horrendous nature of the tragedy.
The lone gunman who shot Congresswomen Giffords was a madman. It is always interesting to listen to people try to make sense out of that which comes from a deranged mind. There is usually only the reason they give, but to those of us who are relatively healthy and sane, there is no rationale answer. Saturday's mass shooting has none.
And that's where the haunt and shock of the event seem to lie. Nationally, unable to fully comprehend the full all of what happened, we began to seek to carry the blame ourselves. Was there something happening within the body politic which 'caused' a woman, committed to public service to be gunned down in the exercise of her duty? And finally we settled in on it - the overheated nature of our political rhetoric. Gibbons, a representative from the state of Arizona, a moderate Democrat who had voted for last year's health care reform legislation in a state highly and heavily criticized for immigration reform laws adjudged by many to be the result of bigotry and xenophobia must have been gunned down by a right-wing Tea Partyer, incited to violence by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
I was seeing the emails 'blow up' twitter long before I saw a report on television. And it wasn't pretty.
Here's the thing though. That wasn't the case. And there are, or should be, plenty of people with egg on their faces, actually proving their own point Saturday night, into Sunday morning.
Don't get me wrong. I am no Sarah Palin supporter (not by a long shot), nor am I a fan of either Limbaugh, Beck or FOX News. My point is this...
It's clear that this young man was seriously deranged, but the very fact that we had to raise the question about whether or not our political discourse has devolved into something that could create an atmosphere that could contribute to something like this, means that we know it has. And it means that we know that we are wrong for allowing that to happen.
I'm still of the opinion that no one needs to 'prove' his or her patriotism because of their political leanings. While there are people express there love and commitment to our country in different ways and to varying degrees, conservatives, ultra and otherwise and liberal, raging and otherwise, love America. The question is are we expressing our points of view in ways that recognize the fact that others may see it differently? And are we willing to enter in to debate in such a way that conveys an understanding that, in our democracy, winning and losing, very, very, rarely indicates either virtue or evil? Do we understand that it is part of a process in which there are winners and losers and in which 'wins and 'loses' are not always 'permanent'? Laws change. Legislation can be modified. Even court rulings are not like the 'laws of the Medes and Persians' there are almost always remedies and recourse for outcomes we don't reflect justice or fairness.
No, putting politicians in cross hairs is ridiculous. Shooting legislation is abject foolishness. Statements that suggest, or infer or sound like incitement to violence against other Americans because of political ideology is wrong.
To me, its not a question of whether or not we've gone too far in our public and political discourse. Of course we have. We're capable of dialing it back if we want it to. But are we willing to adopt a more rationale approach to our interests, know the answer to an effective democracy is not volume or rage, but sustained engagement? The willingness to participate in vigorous debate is a sign of an investment in the future of our country that mature citizens make.
The legacy of the Arizona shooting ought to be to for us to do everything we can to lessen the prospect that should a similar tragedy ever happen, there is little reason to resort to blaming one another for creating an atmosphere that could lead to such violence.
6 comments:
I didn't hear Obama say anything about not jumping to conclusions as he did when the Muslim guy shot the people at Fort Hood. Could it be that he doesn't want a crisis to go to waste? Before the Congresswoman was in the hospital, the hate speech started.
The left wing media should be ashamed of itself. I don't remember a peep out of them when there was all the hate speech about President Bush. Wasn't there a movie about how to assinate him? I don't see hate speech coming from conservatives. Obama has a long list of hate speech, for example, "If they come with knives we will come with guns." There are many more examples.
You did a pretty fair job of straddling the fence. I guess you know if you sided with the left-wing media you would look silly, exactly like they look for their reporting of this situation. It will backfire on them, already has.
Chris,
You are among the people I really don't expect to get this.
It doesn't at all surprise me that you 'don't see' any hate speech coming from conservatives. Or that you are citing obscure examples and unfounded anecdotal evidence.
Continue with your perspective. Hopefully the restt of us will change sufficiently to demonstrate how inappropriate and counterproductive those attitudes are in public discourse.
Hey Rev how about the Obama hate speech quote noted by Chris. Should he get a pass on that? There is plenty of vitriolic dogma spewed by the left. Your advantage is only that the traditional media supports you, and not that the "hate speech" isn't a common practice of the Communist left.
In brotherly love,
Mr Anon
I think there is a marked difference between 'hate speech' and the false equivelence that Chris suggests. It false more in the category of 'Palin said 'reload' see Obama said the same thing'.
The same goes for the business regarding extremism that has portrayed Obama as 'Hitler' and the 'what about Bush?' defense. One would think that if there is any validity to any of this, that there would be an effort on the part of those who have taken offense at past insults to be bigger than the previous 'leftists'. Instead the justification seems to be 'they did it too, so now its our turn'.
I would say that the personal invective on the right has appeared to be much more prevelent. That may be because they also appear to have the biggest microphone. There is however, a certain irrelevance to any of this.
Here's what I think is the question and what I had hoped would be understood from the post:
No administration, no party, should be immune from criticism or hard critique. The party that is 'out of power' has a responsibility in our system of government and in our political culture, to raise hard questions. It even has the right, if not the responsibility to seek to regain power. Civility in public dialogue does not mean passion, nor does it mean the absence of anger. It doesn't mean that irony or satire is out of bounds. It doesn't mean that judgement is unfair, related to policy or the issue.
It is wrong, when public debate includes incitement, personal attack, character assassination and slander. It has to be admitted that, to varying degrees and at different times, that has always been a part of the political drama in our country. At some point, we have to both declare and act as if, we are more sophisticated than that and use reasoned argument to get our points across.
While I definately don't agree with most of what the Tea Party says, one thing it got right eventually, was to channel its anger into political action. That can be done without personal attack. That can be done without invective. That can be done without incitement to violence or anything that can be remotely construed to be incitement to violence.
The fact that this is what was initially turned to in the wake of Congressonwoman Gibbons attempted assassination, to me, shows that we know that something is terribly wrong. And both the attack of the left and the efforts of the right to defend itself against those attacks carry the elements of what is wrong.
There are always points at which there are people who are going to be offended. Some people don't have the stomach for tough political engagement. But baseless accusations, mean spirited personal attacks shouldn't be cloaked in calls for 'free speech'. There is a marked difference between free speech and cheap talk.
I don't know if any of that answers your question. I didn't hear Obama say what you relate. I would say this: we can do one of two things - we can make this a 'he did it first', tit-for-tat, childish fight; or we can decide that our democracy is better served when it becomes an arena for tough debate and conversation where opinion is a matter of principled ideology supported by facts, in which voters ultimately decide the outcome.
I opt for the latter.
So you think the right with only Fox news and talk radio has a louder voice than the left with CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC,MSNBC, CBS, NY Times, Los Angeles Times, Moven.ORG (With all George Sorros $) ad nauseam?
Really?
Anon... you're making Gerald's point for him. Instead of asking, "what can we do to be better at debating people we don't agree with", you are acting like an irrational 8-year-old whose illogical brain can only think, "Oh yeah? Well, he hit me first!"
And, FTR, I am not a Democrat (before you accuse me of being some left-wing nut).
And see what I had to do there? Justify my political leanings. This is exactly what Gerald is talking about.
Post a Comment