Contact
Subscribe
After the Giffords shooting, a crossroads
Heath Haussamen
Standing next to a sheriff’s deputy at a town-hall meeting hosted by then-U.S. Rep. Harry Teague in the summer of 2009, I had an uncomfortable thought.
It would have been easy for one or two armed people to walk into the commission chambers at the Doña Ana County Government Center and shoot both deputies and Teague before anyone else knew what was happening.
I was half expecting such an incident somewhere across the nation at the time. Congress was debating the controversial health care law, tensions were high, and there had been death threats against members of Congress.
For nearly a year and a half, I was relieved that such an event didn’t happen. But I thought about the possibility often. And on Saturday, I was devastated to learn that my fears had come true.
We still don’t know exactly what motivated Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head, kill six others including U.S. District Judge John Roll, and injure a dozen more. There are signs he was mentally unstable. He reportedly leaned to the left politically. There’s also evidence that some of his writings are based on ideas from the right.
However, there’s one thing I’m comfortable saying in laying some blame for this tragedy. We the people, and our politicians, political groups and media, have ramped up the violent rhetoric to a level that only serves to spread hate and division, and thus encourages such tragedies. We all share some of the blame for this shooting because we have tolerated – and some of us have even used – violent rhetoric in our political discourse.
A climate in which violent acts are bound to happen
It’s not clear that Loughner was – or was not – directly influenced by violent rhetoric such as Sarah Palin’s telling followers, “Don’t retreat, reload,” and putting up a map on her Web site showing gun sites over the districts of Giffords and others she wanted to defeat. What is clear is that such rhetoric creates a climate in which violent acts are bound to happen.
As long as we tolerate violent rhetoric and the climate it creates, it may be only a matter of time before another member of Congress is gunned down.
I single out Palin because hers is among the most blatant of recent examples of violent rhetoric from a public official. Those who have more access to the media, like Palin, have a louder voice, and thus a greater duty to watch what they say.
And while the rhetoric has been significantly worse from the right in recent years, examples are plentiful from the left and right – from politicians including President Barack Obama and Rep. Michele Bachmann, from media outlets including FOX News and Daily Kos, and from citizens, including those who held up signs advocating for the killing of George W. Bush while he was president.
The use of violent rhetoric is and certainly should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean we should be using such language. But we do – in our political discourse, in our churches, and in the media. We use violent rhetoric to elicit emotional responses and get people involved.
By “we,” I include myself. If I’ve used violent rhetoric in my 13 years as a journalist – and I’m pretty sure that I occasionally have – I apologize for it. It’s not any more appropriate coming from me than it is from Glen Beck.
Which path will we take?
Following this shooting, America is at a crossroads. In these uber-partisan times, we need to decide which path we’re going to take.
We can continue to choose to view each other with distrust and hate. We can continue to believe those who disagree with us are enemies, and use language that reflects that belief and divides us even further. We can allow ourselves to be torn apart by our division.
Or we can tone it down. We can stop trying to convince people that the other side is the enemy. We can stop implicitly or explicitly condoning violence against each other. We can instead choose to reach out and try to understand the viewpoints of those who are different from us.
Together, if we were to choose mutual respect and understanding, we could build a struggling America into a stronger nation.
That isn’t an easy path. I’m an independent and a moderate not because it’s my natural tendency to gravitate to the middle, but because I work every day to try to understand and respect others’ viewpoints, and because I carry a deep belief in the constitutional principle that it takes the collective deliberation of all of us to find the path forward.
Sometimes it’s difficult to show respect for someone with whom I disagree. I confess that I consider Palin a disgusting caricature of right-wing extremism who contributes to the division and violence that plagues our society. I want her to admit that her violent rhetoric has contributed to a dangerous climate that includes a very real threat against members of Congress and others.
Likewise, I confess that I was constantly infuriated by Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” segment until he suspended it in November. I watched that segment take quotes out of context and twist words in order to make people on the right look stupid and evil. Through doing that, Olbermann promoted division and hatred.
Olbermann’s defense of the segment even as he suspended it was equally maddening.
It’s my hope that by admitting publicly my biases against Palin and Olbermann, I am starting a dialogue and opening myself up to the possibility of gaining a better understanding of who they are and why they do what they do.
Because toning down the violent rhetoric won’t be enough to fix our problems. We have to seek to understand and find a way to respect each other, rather than viewing each other with distrust and hate.
Call me an idealist, but I believe Americans can be mature enough to handle the freedom and the responsibility given to us by our Constitution, and especially our First Amendment. I hope I’m right.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
43 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here is an excellent article comparing the weird thinking of Jared Loughner and the Sovereignty Citizens Movement:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner
While I’m certain I don’t agree with wedum’s proposed solution (too easily abused and arbitrary), it’s interesting to note that the same issue came up in an interview the BBC did yesterday evening with former Senator Hagel, when Matt Frei mentioned that while most of the world is unsurprised that this incident has spawned a debate about vitriolic speech (despite some people’s obvious desire to avoid the subject altogether), they are surprised that we’re not really discussing how a man with a history of mental instability was able to walk into a store and buy a gun with an extended magazine, something that has no real applications for either hunting or self-defense (short of the Zombie Apocalypse, I suppose).
wedum59 says: “…perhaps we need to require all persons to take a mental stability test at age 17-18 and have the results entered automatically into a national data base.” Oh my, now that is something straight out of “1984″, are you serious? You think the government can be trusted to do this? You want the government passing judgement on citizens at that age that will effect all their lives, and take away their civil rights and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
I meant to say exactly what I said. There are a number of definitions of violent: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent
As I said on Facebook, there is no such thing as violent rhetoric, only violent behavior. You meant to say incendiary rhetoric, that is, rhetoric that incites one to behave violently.
I think Eugene Robinson’s article in the Washington Post (“Gun Control”) is pertinent:
“Yet on Nov. 30, he [Loughner] was able to walk into Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson and purchase the weapon that authorities allege was used in Saturday’s rampage. He apparently also bought extra magazines loaded with ammunition.
To buy the gun, Loughner was required to pass a federal background check – and he did, a store manager told reporters. It is against federal law to sell a gun to someone who is mentally ill, but there is no indication that Loughner was ever officially deemed to suffer from mental illness. Even if he had been, there is a good chance that his name would not have been properly entered in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. …”
The same thing occurred in the Virginia Tech tragedy (4-17-2007). The way the violence is escalating, perhaps we need to require all persons to take a mental stability test at age 17-18 and have the results entered automatically into a national data base. This information could then be accessed by gun dealers.
Heath, the more I think of this, the more I realize your original post is part of the problem.
You posted the Sarah Palin chart when there was no link to the subject at all.
There still isn’t.
Falsely implicating Palin is implicitly accusatory.
It fans the flames.
It is part of the problem.
The wonderful irony of this is that the jump to conclusion to
implicate vitriol that is the most vitriolic discourse lately,
Despite everything, Jared Lee Loughner has a extreme right ideology that influenced his actions. Just read his Internet comments – David Wynn Miller and sovereign Citizens Movement thoughts dominate his thinking. That is without doubt. What set him off is another matter!
How is that “fair and balanced”? I’m rather hoping that your post was meant as satire, but if not, could you please explain how the right has anything even remotely resembling the “moral high ground”? Particularly if they are “equally wrong”?
Pinkie:
The death of Judge Roll is more a matter of “wrong place, wrong time” than any aspect of political rhetoric. As for political hate speech, I rather disagree with you as to degree and quantity coming from the left in comparison to the right, but will readily acknowledge the possibility of that merely being an element of my bias. However, I think it’s only fair to point out that your own bias is showing when your source for hate speech from the left is Michelle Malkin, who is herself a source of hate speech from the right.
The Left and Right are equally wrong but the Right has the moral high ground and the Left needs to change. Fair and balanced.
Here is Rush Limbaugh at his worst inciting the right wing regarding the threat of all liberals in the world!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD0GRCSWlwU
How is the murder/assassination of a strict-constitutionalist judge the result of violent right-wing rhetoric? This guy was a Tea Party hero.
Even so, if you want to talk about Giffords (who Loughner had been allegedly obsessed with since 2007 for personal reasons…read: not political reasons), she is a Dem, but right of center…it’s Arizona. She would make a certain notorious senator from her same state blush if their records were compared in a right-wing townhall.
I find the left-wings call to arms for curtailing hate speech disingenuous. It’s like Ford taking a bailout and GM saying it’s wrong for the gov to take such action. It’s similar to the Republican House Reps pledging an end to pork, then loading up Senatorial bills instead.
The hate speech is equal on both sides (left wing hate speech well documented here > http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/). Rhodes=Hannity, Hartman=Beck, Miller=Boortz, Schultz=Limbaugh, etc. Frankly, I don’t have much of a problem with them saying such things. We can stop it all by not paying attention to them. These are entertainers who mix in spun current events and history.
I do find it irresponsible when our government bureaucrats, like Alan Grayson (by far the worst offender) and Bachman make such inflammatory statements. They need to be held to a higher standard.
So, when those on the left are ready to step forward and clean up the speech on their own side as well I’ll get on board with you. But as long as you only want to punish one group for the same sins as another that you want to let go free, I’ll continue to stand in the middle.
Heath said: “We have to seek to understand and find a way to respect each other, rather than viewing each other with distrust and hate.” Not any time soon. We’ve got denial, mockery, accusations. No trust, no respect.
Here is an article on Jesse Kelly, the opponent of Congresswoman Giffords in last election. Kelly’s campaign event website had a photo of the former Marine holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
http://www.alan.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-held-june-rally-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/
This is ill-conceived and thoughtless campaign event.
Heath, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here.
Loughner was a Wack job – obviously psychotic. Far more likely that such an unstable person would be influenced by the violence shown on TV & the movies every night, that by “violent rhetoric”…
But the Most likely cause is the same one that has been at the root of almost EVERY school shooting or incidence of office violence. One that has mysteriously been “overlooked” by the mainstream media (whose ties can be traced to Big Pharma) since these debacles started growing in frequency … I’m talking about Psychiatric Drugs. The very things that are supposed to help unstable people are CAUSING (by their own admission – read the labels!) violence and suicidal ideations.
Whether Loughner was on them or not is yet to be seen. But it’s disturbing to me to see such horrific acts blamed on something as meaningless as “violent rhetoric”. That has been around for much longer than the Tea Party has, longer than Republicans or Democrats. I think we need to know WHY such acts occur before we can address them with attempts at correction, and watching our P’s and Q’s is not the answer. I will be watching to see if news of his psychiatric drug use gets suppressed., but I suspect this is a random act by a loony weirdo. Tragic.
Right, those Germans know everything about what happens in America and why. I can’t wait to see what the French, Iranians, Cubans, Mexicans, and North Koreans think too. After all, this is what the world thinks, right? So it must be true.
Interestingly in Germany…..
Yeah the Germans are never wrong.. /sarcasm
Interestingly in Germany, newspapers and magazines openly blame the Tea party and Sarah Palin for inciting the shooting in Tucson. Here is an article from the Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,738676,00.html
This is how other countries view us!
I didn’t miss it….but you keep singling out Palin.
You clump Obama in with MSNBC, Fox News, and Michele Bachmann as if he were some nobody politico. He’s the President of the United States and has made incindiary comments, some much more so than anything Palin has ever said. That, to me, is just beyond ridiculous.
I appreciate your work and your webpage. I even agree with a lot of your commentary in most instances. I just can’t see what the fascination is with “Blame Palin”. Is that the new “Blame Bush”?!
It should also be noted, Bob, that the President was (rather unwisely) quoting a movie.
Perhaps you missed it Bob, but I also called Obama out in this commentary – and if you click on the link that is Obama’s name, it takes you to the very quote you just brought up…
Oh Heath…here we go again.
President Obama, the most public of public figures said at fundraiser in Pennsylvania “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
So, please stop with the “I single out Palin because hers is among the most blatant of recent examples of violent rhetoric from a public official. Those who have more access to the media, like Palin, have a louder voice, and thus a greater duty to watch what they say.”
Take the words of the Great Communicator, and just let it be.
”We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” – Ronald Reagan
IP, There may be an marked increase in threats in the last two years but based on what? Clearly there have been all sorts of things said, written, posted, drawn, etc. in the recent past but perhaps only in the last serveral years has it raised concerns. If you need a summary of the various “death to GWB” variety statements, they are easy to find. The only thing new in the last few years was who was protesting and about what..
One person’s “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”, is another’s threat.
I have just been sitting here reading everyones comments and, it occured to me. In the big picture it is not much, but locally, what about Sound Off? Every day, people can call in and say whatever they want, wether true or not, and there is no name included. Just today is the following:
“Martinez has already shown her dictator personality”. Has this person actually met and talked to her? Probably not, just mad about the election.
“Can’t the Sheriffs Department use this money for better use? the election is over.” referring to the public service announcement on the radio. This is not an election ad, it is a public service announcement letting residents know what is going on, probably paid for with grant, not budgetary funds.
“the governors decisive cluelessnes in firing the spaceport director”. Maybe she knows something you don’t which is why he was fired.
The animal shelter is another favorite to trash.
Maybe “home” is a good place to start to stop the nastiness.
stever:
There has been a marked increase in threats the past two years, but there’s a world of difference between people who threaten an act of violence and those who actually go through with it – or, for that matter, those who are caught just before apparently attempting to go through with it, something which has also happened with increasing regularity. In the end, of course, the successful ones are usually the ones who never make an actual threat.
Skeptic:
While Sheriff Dupnik’s statement may not seem specifically relevant, it does remain generally so. Even if Loughner himself wasn’t motivated by specific political vitriol, there is an additional (and possibly not-entirely-separate) issue of the nature of political hate speech in Arizona itself. Furthermore, have you not considered the possibility that while Loughner himself appears merely to be unbalanced, being surrounded by such attitudes on a frequent basis may have contributed to him transitioning from merely writing his bizarre screeds against a variety of almost nebulous targets to actually going out and picking one to assassinate?
You have repeatedly cautioned (or, in many cases, actively derided) anyone who dares to mention political vitriol as either an actual or merely possible component of this incident (or at least you have if they came from the left), demanding that they not form any conclusions at this early. It seems, however, that what you are rather comfortable with your conclusion in regards to Loughner’s sanity, and would rather avoid participating in (or even reading) a decidedly uncomfortable and long overdue conversation about the potential consequences of coupling hate speech with unbalanced individuals.
Hemingway, I think you’re still trying to find a “logical” political motive where none really exists. If Loughner is a fan of Miller then it may be because Loughner seems (at present) to be drawn to the most disjointed and heated speech available, regardless of what that speech actually says. He doesn’t appear to have been paying much attention to the actual content of anything he watched or read, at least not in the way a person with a healthy mind would. Frankly, he seems far more obsessed with his personal method of butchering the English language than substantive political issues.
If “violent” rhetoric caused people to kill others, there’d be a lot more of this type of thing happening. That it doesn’t means that something else, something overwhemlingly more significant is in play when it does happen. The shooter in AZ is clearly a mental case and trying to assign a political motive or blame someome else is childish reasoning.
llaj:
…….”Tucson Sheriff Dupnik said it very well and I agree with him completely…
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told the news media Saturday that he blamed “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”
“The bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”…….
Great.
Now can you cite ANY evidence that Loughner was influenced by bigotry or vitriol (other than the horrid music
he was listening to)?
His initial run in with Giffords was in 2007 before even the politically astute knew who Sarah Palin was.
That was before there was a Tea Party.
That was a time when most of the vitriol was directed at President Bush.
Hemingway:
…”I could see how it could influence Loughner”…
You, like others, are projecting your bias.
Why not start here when looking for influence on Loughner:
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
1 Nothing wrong with me…
2 Nothing wrong with me…
3 Nothing wrong with me…
4 Nothing wrong with me…
1 Something’s got to give…
2 Something’s got to give…
3 Something’s got to give…
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
Let the bodies hit the floor.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/f/0/3L1lsLU-kUw
Heath,
I appreciate your sentiments, though for the most part,
people who read your blog and post are within civil bounds,
and governed by reason.
But popular movements are almost by definition emotional and not reasoned.
As humans, our higher thinking is in the frontal cortex.
Baser emotion lies within the reptile brain we share with lower life forms.
Not all humans have developed reasoning skills, but all do have emotional response.
Politicians of today understand this and use emotion rather than reason (attack ads, anyone?)
Anger seems to drive the vote more effectively than any other of the base emotions.
Reflect on the anger at Bush that led to the 2006 Democrat victory and 2008 presidential win.
Reflect on the anger at Obama that led to the 2010 House overturning.
As long as politicians can exploit this they will fan the flames to fuel majorities.
The good news is that despite this anger, there is relatively little political violence in this country.
And that of the assassinations in this country, the majority, as in this case,
were the result of mental illness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Tucson Sheriff Dupnik said it very well and I agree with him completely…
Sheriff Dupnik is Right About Arizona
Here is the Facebook of David Wynn Miller and a video on the End of Liberty – frightening – recommended by Miller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQv-sdMCClQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Wynn-Miller/90414947260#!/pages/David-Wynn-Miller/90414947260?v=wall
I could see how it could influence Loughner
Here is a video on the sovereign citizen” movement. The West Memphis police chief narrates training video about sovereign-citizen movement.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/nov/30/film-warns-officers-of-sovereign-citizens/
It appears pretty clear that Jared Lee Loughner has read a lot of David Wynn Miller, who is part of a far-right movement called the Sovereign Citizen Movement that denies government power at every level. I searched for their website, and it was down. Here is an excellent article on him and his possible influence on Jared Lee Loughner.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/09/david-wynn-miller.aspx
I also think the media giving a huge megaphone to a crackpot, two bit, tin-horn sheriff to espouse his amateur psycho-babble for the causation of this incident is reprehensible. Why do people like this, with no qualification, education, or experience in a scientific field, get treated as “experts” by media just because they are nearby their microphones and part of “the authorities”? Oh, I forgot, the media are in control of what we hear. Yet another problem in America.
Fair and balanced. Olbermann equals Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Dr Laura, Palin, etc. Calling Duhbya a chimp equals showing up at Presidential appearances with guns and calling the President a foreign-born muslim socialist bent on destroying everything we hold dear. Yup. We’re all equally to blame and we’re not going to get anywhere until we all accept that as the truth.
Lets see how the right wing talk show hosts react. They cause this type of behavior.
This is a reasoned response to an insane act. Obviously this man was way out in the ozone, and his attempt to deal with that created tragedy for many of his fellow humans.
When times are bad and there’s no obvious enemy in sight to blame, people start blaming each other and creating or amplifying the differences between groups. Any attempt to reduce the rhetorical pressure is welcome. Thanks!
I think people should really step back and put this in context, and not just political context. There have always been assassins and crazed loonies with guns who want to achieve their 15 minutes of fame. The 24 hour news cycle encourages and enables this, thus cable channels (left, right, and center), blogs, tweets, Facebook, etc. also are to blame for this. Was John Lennon assassinated because of music? Was Reagan attacked because he was a conservative Republican? How about JFK, RFK, McKinley, Lincoln, etc.? Were they all killed because of their politics and “violent” political rhetoric? All of these had much more complex causes than politics alone. America is a very open and free society, and no matter what you do, these kinds of things will happen when crazed loonies with a gun search for fame and validation. That does not mean we shouldn’t be more civil and respectful in our political discourse, we should. As this very blog proves, it is too common for personal attacks on a poster to quickly occur when it is obvious a fundamental and profound disagreement wrt opinions is reached. All should guard against this and call it out, as I would like to see our President summon his leadership skills and immediately condemn those on the left and right who seek to blame each other and politics for this murderous act by an insane and highly disturbed person.
Well, Heath, to be as angry as I was at you over the weekend, I think this may have made up for it. I apologize as well. Though, this still doesn’t make up for allowing Michael Hays to insult, attack, and dispage anyone he pleases and say anything he wants to on this board. Take a further step and censor Hays like you have the rest of us.
Now you have Sarah Palin’s nonsensical cohorts saying: “all evidence says yes, Barack Obama may have very well inspired radical Marxist Jared Lee Loughner to commit mass murder. it’s more likely Jared Lee Loughner would be inspired by a fellow traveler, and a fellow Marxist, like Barack .”
http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/
Maybe we should wait to see what Loughner has to say for himself. He is still alive.