The events in Arizona are horrifying. Many lives were destroyed or changed in terrible ways. As some of the victims continue to struggle for recovery, I'm praying for them, their families and friends, and those who are assisting them.
The suspected gunman has been captured and appears to be truly unhinged. At the same time, the fact remains that Congresswoman Giffords is a politician who was shot in the head while in the line of duty, meeting with constituents while a banner with her name on it hung nearby and her staff surrounded her. It's fair to wonder aloud if this act was political. it's fair to expect and demand a Department of Justice investigation. And it's fair to look at circumstances leading up to the event of the shooting, whether directly relevant to the final investigation or not.
At this point, everyone - even law enforcement - is in a state of discovery. One discovery?
Giffords had an opinion on violent rhetoric in politics well before the events of early January, and felt some of it (including some directed at her specifically) was downright threatening. She didn't appreciate being a candidate in the crosshairs on Sarah Palin's Tea Party campaign site, for example.
Whatever the shooter's motivation in this case, Giffords was raising a valid concern that deserves consideration. It's tragic that a tragedy was required to call the nation's attention to her concern, but here we are.
Bottom line: It's never irresponsible to open a conversation about how using sniper language in campaigns could be bad. It's really a separate issue from Loughner's mindset and the actual shooting, and it's a topic we need to discuss as a nation. It's right to point out that the First Amendment is great, and so is some level of personal restraint when it comes to running a country. Talking about shooting people down in the course of a campaign runs the risk of being taken literally (people are passionate about politics) and might be good language to avoid if you're trying to inspire people to political action. If you're a guardian of civilization, please act like it.
Ugliness seems to be an essential part of politics and campaigning. But when we critics say all parties should consider condemning and cutting violent rhetoric, is everyone in American politics equally guilty of the charge?
Former VP candidate and Tea Party icon Sarah Palin has some examples that arguably cross a line -- see
here and
here (the infamous target map example that displeased Giffords).
So does Fox News pundit Glenn Beck, see
ironic graphics here.
But perhaps one of the most appalling examples occurred when Tea Partier Sharron Angle challenged leading Democrat Harry Reid for his U.S. Senate seat in Nevada. In an interview on talk radio - reiterated later for an ABC-TV affiliate station, Angle talked about "second amendment remedies." (
Her words - see here.)
Some argue the language is pervasive at the highest levels in the Democratic party too.
Obama's oft-cited example is here. Bringing a gun when someone brings a knife to a fight? OMG! OMG!
I've never been a fan of that Obama comment, but it's pretty clear it's a non-literal metaphor about self-defense... If someone is going to get dirty in an otherwise civil argument (i.e. bring a knife being a metaphor for nasty tactics) you may need to protect yourself (i.e. bring a smoking gun of facts & rhetoric.) But notice Obama didn't talk about **literally using a gun**, much less using it proactively or in response to policy he doesn't like. On the other hand, the "second amendment remedies" comment by Angle is in response to a policy debate and the subtext pretty much unmistakably says, "Stop doing what we don't like or we will literally use guns will settle this debate." An important note here: The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution refers to **actual, literal arms** - not metaphorical arms - so when someone invokes it, it's not cute or literary - it's a thinly veiled threat. The Angle comment from the right and the Obama comment from the left are hardly equal in message, content or tone.
The examples of violent language cited for most politicians on the left are generally less direct or literal.
Some critics have brought up repulsive comments by people like left-leaning comedienne Sandra Bernhardt as examples of leftist violence. But Bernhardt is hardly a political official or noted influencer of policy -- NOT the equivalent of a Palin, Beck or Angle. If we're going outside the circle of true policymakers, then the language of some religious activists would go leagues further than even Bernhardt's worst.
So much for examples on the left of U.S. politics.
Republicans and Tea Partiers -- please take an honest look. Can you wonder why some suggest you should clean house or have a serious internal conversation about what's acceptable from leaders who represent your values in public life?
Because when one looks at the sum of violent rhetoric examples on the right from high-ranking leaders and endorsed candidates....
Well, you might want to don a bullet-proof vest at this point just to be safe while folks hash things out.
