You'd have to have your head in a bucket to not know that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a democrat from Arizona, was shot in a rampage this last Saturday. It's a horrifying story. A crazed (that's how he's described by eyewitnesses and by the subsequent examination of his life) gunman walked up and started shooting. Eighteen people were shot. Six of them died. Among them was the chief U.S. District judge of Arizona, John M. Roll, and little Christina Taylor Green, age 9, born on Sept. 11, 2001. It is indeed horrifying. It is sad for those shot and sad for the families who lost loved ones and sad for Rep Giffords' husband who is likely holding his breath waiting for the outcome.
What is stunning to me is the response. Pima County (where the shooting took place) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik "denounced the nation's vitriolic political climate and noted Arizona's part in the rancor after a controversial crackdown on illegal immigration," according to the Washington Post. He is quoted as saying, "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." There you have it. The reason this shooting took place was because Arizona has been trying to crack down on illegal immigration. It is our racist bigotry. That's what caused it.
No, of course that's not the argument (even though that seems to be Sheriff Dupnik's point). I heard it from all over. It's the general climate in this country of political conflict. One writer at the New Yorker says, "Whatever drove Jared Lee Loughner, America's political frequencies are full of violent static." And he's not unclear on who the real culprits are. It's those darn conservatives. "For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents," he writes and goes on to explain the horrible use of terms like "treason". Even that horrendous "reading of the Constitution" the other day was clearly an assault on the Democrats. It's coming from everywhere. It's this climate of conflict that caused it. And this climate of conflict is almost exclusively the conservatives ... especially folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. This, of course, isn't the only odd take. Some are saying that it's due to pro-lifers. You see, Giffords was strongly pro-abortion, so clearly it was the conservatives who caused this. Very clearly it is the conservatives in general and the tea party folks in particular that caused this tragedy.
There is an underlying premise for the "it's the national climate of conflict" argument that baffles me. The premise is, "If we were just nicer to each other, then no one would shoot anyone." The originating idea is that people are basically good, and if we would just encourage that "good" in people, nothing bad would ever happen. Nonsense!
The facts don't match the positions. Loughner, the gunman, is described as "an unstable left-wing activist". He hates religion, likes Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, and cannot be found connected in any way to the tag "conservative". But more than that, the nonsense that "today's climate of political conflict" is the cause fails completely to take into account that political shootings have taken place for centuries, and that humans are sinful at their core, not "nice guys" just waiting to be warmed into being good. Hunting down the evil conservatives to solve this problem won't solve this problem. It won't even be a good band aid.
Side question: Do those who are blaming conservatives, the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, or those who oppose illegal immigration really think that making these outrageous accusations will help diminish the atmosphere of contention?
16 comments:
Since he was describe by a friend as a lefty pothead (or something similar), maybe the proper blame should be on the pot.
Loughner, the gunman, is described as "an unstable left-wing activist". He hates religion, likes Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, and cannot be found connected in any way to the tag "conservative".
Not true.
If you watch the videos and match the rhetoric to the those preaching it, it's clear his spiel is in the vein of Ron Paul / Glenn Beck "End the Fed", global currency, tea party, "evil government"…
AFA conservative rhetoric and mass shootings, the historical record of the past few years tells a much different story. I'd say that's a pattern of conservative (at least the "libertarian" bent of conservatism) wreaking violence on "liberal" victims.
Enough of this false equivalency, as there is a history of conservative talking head murder fantasy.
While it doesn't matter why this deranged person did it, words do have consequences.
You're familiar with the command to the ancients, 'Do not murder.' I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill.
And there's been an marked uptick in violence and threats of violence since a black Democratic president took office.
Naum,
The information I got was from the source I cited. All accounts I've heard thus far says that he is not rational, let alone "tea party" or "conservative".
So, let's see if I understand you correctly. The only possible reason that anyone would shoot a politician these days is that conservatives are mean. If conservatives were nice, no one would assassinate a politician. Of course, it's a given that only conservatives are mean-spirited.
Here are some Obama quotes over the last year:
"They bring a knife ... we bring a gun"
"Get in their faces!"
"I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!"
"Hit back twice as hard"
"We talk to these folks ... so I know whose ass to kick."
Republican victory would mean "hand to hand combat"
"Punish your enemies."
"I’m itching for a fight."
But, let's not quibble over who's mean and who's not. Are you saying that this lunatic shot Rep. Giffords because Glen Beck et al use rhetoric that you don't approve of?
No, I'm saying that prominent conservative media talking heads consistently fantasize about murdering their opponents, litter their arguments with incitations to violence, and the results, as the evidence shows, has borne out these mass shootings…
Ultimately the shooter is responsible, but imbuing all the rhetoric about "second amendment remedies" certainly pours gasoline on the matter -- to say that both sides are the same is to establish a false equivalency -- see SLPC, ADL, any other organization that tracks hate group activity…
While certainly it's not the monopoly of those on the right, the difference is that Republican leadership has embraced such verbal tactics (since Gingrich) and celebrates it, whereas for the most part, that behavior on the left is relegated to anonymous comments on blogs or fringe talkers with no sizable market share (unlike Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Republican candidates for office, etc.…)
Just look at the record of mass shootings (and thwarted/attempted shootings) over the past 2 years, since Obama took office. The incidents are overwhelmingly right wing "tea party" individuals going over the edge and carrying out their "second amendment remedy". Tell me all the hate mongering by Beck, Savage, etc.… does not have an effect. To not see this is to be blind to the facts.
I challenge you to show me a left/liberal news talker that's the equivalent of this…
A couple of things.
First, finding a "left/liberal news talker" is not so easy these days ... at all. That's one of the reason for the renewed demand for the "Fairness Doctrine". (There is no sizable market share, apparently, because people don't seem interested in listening to them.)
Second, while I may not be able to offer you such a person, there is no shortage of "left/liberal" folks who are as excessive as anything you might attribute to the "right".
(Note to my parents. If you are reading this, don't follow that link. It is filled with vile and disgusting things. It makes the point ... the hard way. Trust me.)
Third, there is no evidence -- none ... zero ... zip -- that this gunman carried out this attack because of "mean-spirited right wing rhetoric". There is every evidence that he was delusional, believing that there was some government mind-control conspiracy and worse. Thus, the connection has not been made and repeatedly claiming it doesn't make it so.
Finally, I wonder what you propose. Censorship? Limiting free speech? Shall we cut off the Becks and Limbaughs? Shall we offer the same to those of the left that offer the same type of garbage? (Don't think for a moment they don't.) Shall we prosecute for words? What do you propose?
As a sidenote, I am appalled at your suggestion that one primary contributing factor to the hate in American politics is the race of the president.
As a sidenote, I am appalled at your suggestion that one primary contributing factor to the hate in American politics is the race of the president.
Did you read the Nate Silver article?
Presidential threats are up 400%. Threats against Congress and Senate up 300%, 100% respectively since Obama took office.
Did you read the linked article on gun violence? All the perpetrators that cited hatred of Obama as their casus belli, or adherence to political philosophies expounded by Glenn Beck?
I'm still appalled at the suggestion that race is the reason for hateful politics. (And I'm still quite sure that it isn't a "conservative" problem; it's a human problem. Not just one side.)
I know a Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK). Something he said reminded me of what the Kook said. I asked him how Bush convinced the terrorists to give their lives for the advancement of his agenda. He looked me straight in the face and said "mind control". He was serious too.
On your first video you linked Naum, I don't get the connection.
Second link:
"On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association's contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become "tyrannical." The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:"
This is patent liberal dribble. Sorry, History didn't begin in June 2008.
Third link:
"Both sides are, in fact, not "just as bad,"
"There is, demonstrably, no leftist equivalent to Sarah Palin..."
Oh, I'm sorry... this guy says this is so so it must be true. I'll change my mind right away and become a conservative hating love professing bleeding heart race bating liberal. Give me a break.
You have not offered anything so far substantive. Following your links to deluded liberals web sites is a waist of time. One need only to watch CNN to get the same dribble. Stan has done a good job making his case. You have provided bad links. I declare that he wins and you loose.
I had to publish it, Dan. It's not very often I get to be declared the winner. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QxgJKNpjSNI
A little love from our friends on the left.
I published Craig's link to show that it's not those "evil conservatives" who are stirring this up. That is, they're not alone in this language ... by far.
On the other hand, I published Craig's link with caution. Mom, Dad, don't go there. Bad words ... very bad words.
You've got it all wrong Craig. You see Sara palin deserves this because this poor guy was not listening to the nice guys to which the You Tube Vid. alludes, but he obviously, to anyone with a brain and is connected to truth, listened instead to Palin. This guy is totally innocent and not culpable in any way for his actions. Hitler, the case can be made, never actually pulled the trigger to hurt a soul, but like Palin, who might as well have flown to Tuscon and pulled the trigger herself, is held culpable for the death of millions... that is if I follow the logic properly.
To borrow from Ms Turner, "What's logic got to do with it?"
I'll never hear that song again the same... and if I'm lucky... period.
Stan,
Sorry should have included the advisory.
It is interesting that folks are unearthing more Dems using similar language.
John Kerry, suggesting that he could go to 1600 Penn Ave and kill one bird with one stone.
The fact that there is apparantly a democratic map with targets (although they look like archery targets) in similar places.
The fact is no one reasonable takes this kind of language for anything but what it is. Unless it can be used as a political weapon.
Post a Comment