Mindless Menace of Violence
In response to the murderous outburst of political violence in Arizona, an un-named Republican senator said that this should be a cautionary tale for Republicans, that “there is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now? What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.” The staggering fact is that this senator lacked the courage to say this on the record, so much has the menace of rhetorical violence captured the public square. Well, one politician addressed this topic more than 40 years ago, with an eloquence, a passion, and an honesty that is sorely lacking today. That man was Bobby Kennedy. And he paid the ultimate price himself. It’s time to reflect on his words, in what remains one of the most powerful speeches of modern times.
Comments are closed.
Yes, a political liberal was driven mad by Republicans so he goes out and kills a Democrat. Makes sense to me.
This young man appears to have lost touch with reality as happens to some in their early 20′s. The claims he was a liberal are no more verifiable from what I have seen than the claims he was a conservative.
This incident begs too questions, the first concerning how we treat, or do not treat, our mentally ill. That is not the subject of this strand.
The second concerns whether or not the heated political rhetoric can feed into the actions of the mentally ill. Though I am not qualified to answer, my guess would be yes. Either way, do you really approve of the rhetoric coming from the like of Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest? Yes there are extremist on the left, but the level of the rhetoric is not as sharp or given as much are time. It is also not as violent. A Republican candidate for the senate from Arizona (Sharon Angle) said Americans should be prepared with “Second Amendment remedies” as a cure for the direction the country is heading. Tom Delay refused to negotiate with Democrats in congress because they were his enemies. The right has consisted portrayed the left as unpatriotic and un-American because they disagree on the best course to solve our nation’s problems.
Would you agree that it is time to honestly argue the issues stop making political attacks and distorting your opponent’s views and motives? People of good character on the left and on the right (which I assume all those who would be interested in posting on a Catholic blog are) should begin to denounce those who agree with them for taking the argument to a level that is unacceptable.
The claims of his political liberalism come from his friends….
I point this out because you cannot use politics, as those on the left are trying to do, to assign blame here. He was crazy.
I have absolutely no problem with the rhetoric of Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh ( I actually like it) or even Maddow, Matthews and Olberman (which I dont like).
The young man seems to have been not simply political but mentally ill. If that is the case, it is not really truthful to call this incident simply political violence. He was indeed against government but unlike a Timothy McVeigh, he thought that the government was controlling us through grammar. His entire college class found him disturbing.
Paul Krugman adequately responds to those who are in denial about the toxic politics of the Right in America:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&hp
I just read this earier today digby. Thanks for reposting.
I’m no fan of violent rhetoric, understanding the violence it possesses in itself and its potential to lead to physical violence, and I say that every day is a good day to speak against it. However, pointing fingers at instances of violent rhetoric doesn’t necessarily explain a physical act of violence. It may be that the perpetrator isn’t even aware of the instances to which one points. It’s one thing to investigate a connection; it’s another to assume it. It’s best to demonstrate it.
A sampler of political hate:
http://michellemalkin.com/
This is a sampler of violent political rhetoric from the left, in case anyone misses the point…
And so you don’t miss the point these are examples of unacceptable rhetoric. Any Christian person can recognize them as such. Also they are not put up by current candidates for federal office or former vice presidential candidates.
It is hard to understand Beck’s rhetoric as acceptable since he demonizes all who disagree with him. Or to accept Palin calling anyone who is to the left of her un-American.
I do not blame this young man for killing these innocent people, I blame the hate speech present in the political strategies of today. Robert Kennedy is as correct today as he was then. There is violence in the words we speak and print and every time we utter violence we add to the intensity of hate that permeates our world and become a cause of the violence and not a solution for peace. In yesterday’s reading the Spirit of God was seen as a dove descending on Our Lord. Hate speech disguised as political or theological self-righteousness is violent and it harms and influences those who are most sensitive to this kind of violence.
Those who are oblivious to this reality are either lying to themselves or they have mutated to the point that empathy is no longer a function of their psyche.
By the way, the Federal Judge who was killed was the judge that our friend Matt Bowman clerked for. One of my employees clerked for him until last summer, too. He was a faithful Catholic and a friend to Ave Maria Law School.
yet even he received death threats because he was viewed as “soft” on immigration.
I’m still waiting for anybody on the right to come up with gun-violence rhetoric from any person on the left of the stature of Sarah Palin, or the several elected officials who have used such language, in politics; or in the media anyone on the left with the stature and following of Limbaugh, Beck, et al. who have used, or defended the users of rhetoric that would contribute to the atmosphere of violence. Show me transcripts. Show me the clips.
Rodak,
In June 2008, then presidential-candidate Obama said, in reference to the campaign against McCain getting rough, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Of course, you and I know he was being entirely metaphorical. He was just showing he was “tough enough” to win the race.
Perhaps Palin, in her less silver-tongued way, was doing exactly the same with her “targetting”, eh?
Palin is being criticized for the US maps with targets on them. Here is a link discussing similar maps created by Democratic committees. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/giffords-on-the-gunsights.html
It strikes me as willfully disingenuous that people who generally self-identify as conservatives are smoothing over this evidently political assassination attempt on the grounds of the would-be assassin’s mental illness. Was Reagan’s would-be assassin dismissed so lightly?
And it should be borne in mind that the assassins and would-be assassins who have emerged since Obama’s election — for instance, the guy in Pittsburgh who killed three police officers; the white supremacist who killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum; the man who flew a plane into a Texas I.R.S. building; the Michigan-based militia whose members sought to spark an armed insurrection by killing police officers — all self-identified as far-right.
I’m not saying that they weren’t also mentally ill. Mental illness doesn’t excuse heinous acts up to and including murder, which is why most felons whose defense is based on insanity are convicted nonetheless. I just think it’s interesting, even telling, that the current cultural ethos of violent rhetoric seems to have struck a nerve with violent mentally ill people who plan assassinations, and also that all of those I mentioned, as well as Rep. Giffords’s assailant, held a hatred of the government, and all attempted to act out that hatred in murderous violence.
It is simply irresponsible for politicians to suggest “Second Amendment remedies” to political or cultural disagreements. And it is willful blindness and deafness for those who self-identify on the right to pretend hateful rhetoric like Sharron Angle’s (and let’s not forget that, since Giffords’s attempted murder, Sarah Palin has scrubbed those bullseye targets off Giffords’s face and the faces of her Democratic colleagues on Facebook) has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
And of course, there’s also the ease with which violent mentally-ill people can obtain assault weapons, but that’s another story.
Pentimento,
It strikes me as willfully disingenuous that people who generally self-identify as conservatives are smoothing over this evidently political assassination attempt on the grounds of the would-be assassin’s mental illness. Was Reagan’s would-be assassin dismissed so lightly?
I comment with trepidation as I really like your writing, but I am after all a self-identified conservative, and I like to think that I’m not willfully disingenuous, so I’ll try to give this one a try:
Conservatives mostly tend to emphasize that this guy was mostly just crazy more than being political because they look at themselves and think, “I would absolutely never advocate or support shooting a politician I disagreed with one some issues, so why should I blame my politics for this person’s actions?” This is compounded by the fact that the killer seems to have been one seriously disturbed toon, thought that the government was using grammer to oppress people, listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite works (along with Mein Kampf, which just goes to show how far from having a discernible ideology the guy was), etc.
Now, needless to say I think it’s childish and inappropriate for politicians to be going around talking about “second ammendment remedies” to disagreements, and otherwise using overly violent imagery. If this causes someone to re-think that kind of behavior, I’m certainly fine with that.
But I think that what fuels a lot of this is that in tense political situations, people tend to see those who disagree with them as being naturally dangerous and badly motivated. As such, when people see a violent event which could plausibly be blamed on their political opponents, they tend to automatically assume that their opponents actions or beliefs lead naturally to the violence, while when someone on their own “side” gets violent, it’s for some other reason. A classic example of this was in the twin abortion related shootings over the last couples years: When someone with basically anti-abortion sympathies shot late term abortionist Dr. Tiller, it was widely opined that pro-life rhetoric was to blame for this. Yet when a few months later Harlan Drake shot and killed a pro-life activist holding a protest sign — pro-choice advocates didn’t worry that their own rhetoric against “anti-choice” advocates who want to “force women to have babies” was to blame. Instead, they suspect it was… pro-life rhetoric being offensive.
In point of fact, I think people tend to find rhetoric far more “violent” when they perceive it as aimed at them, whereas they see it as being “metaphorical” or some such if it’s coming from their own side. It’s all part and parcel with the assumption that one’s own side is good and the others are just evil.
As for the assassination attempt on Reagan — well to be honest, I was three at the time, so I don’t really recall what anyone said. But given that the guy was pretty clearly demented rather than having any particular political ax to grind, I would imagine that progressives who had been insisting that the election of Reagan was going to end civilization were hesitant to abandon their rhetoric. And while I tend to think they were wrong, I don’t begrudge them that.
While our political leanings are different, Darwin, I agree with your analysis. Long story, short—people are intellectually dishonest and make excuses for their “side”. There is no need to get made about it. People are people and we all have our pyschological defenses.
“And it should be borne in mind that the assassins and would-be assassins who have emerged since Obama’s election — for instance, the guy in Pittsburgh who killed three police officers; the white supremacist who killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum; the man who flew a plane into a Texas I.R.S. building; the Michigan-based militia whose members sought to spark an armed insurrection by killing police officers — all self-identified as far-right.”
If I recall, the IRS guy had mostly leftist views, while the Holocaust shooter was a Truther and hated Bush, “neo-cons”, and Christians. And you’re forgetting the Discovery channel hostage-taker motivated by the environment. And the Virginia Tech shooter who hated the wealthy (though he was before Obama).
But it’s not productive to label these people as being on the “left” or having “liberal” ideas. Because they are not “left” or “liberal”. They are sick and insane. That’s it. It would be wrong of me to make any conclusion about liberal ideas from these sick people.
The killer was a LIBERAL!!
The tea parties are also LIBERAL ideologues, who have adopted Leninist political straregies.
This is your pet theory. Ok…
It’s much more than a “pet theory,” and, if you were a traditional EUROPEAN-style “conservative,” as I am, you would be able to recognise the intellectual consistency of MM’s cogent analyses of modern day American “conservatism” as a thorough-going rejection of the political philosophies inherent in the orthodox theologies of Aquinas, of Aristotle, of the Jesuit political thinkers of the 16th century. Traditionally Christian “conservatives” were never the radical individualists of both the “conservative” and “liberal” politics of America. MM is profoundly correct: there are NO real “conservative” politics in America, as defined by the classical Conservative theologies and politics of the West.
Interesting only to you and Minion….
the fact is the shooter was a left-wing pot smoking flag burner. He was not of the tea party. That he was a left-wing pot smoking flag burner does not figure into his criminal act. It shows, however, that the attempts to tie him to the right is just craven hate speech.
Based on what evidence was he a liberal? Common wisdom holds that liberals love government; at least that’s the charge that’s always leveled against them by their political opponents. Jared Lee Loughner, judging from the documentary evidence, hated government, which would put him de facto in the camps of the right.
His friends were quoted in the New York Times saying he was a liberal.
That’s not exactly evidence.
It is eye witness evidence, as a matter of fact and much more than you offer that he did this because of Palin/Limbaugh/Beck. Sheesh. Look in the mirror.
Really? Just like the liberal homo pervert intern who saved Rep. Gifford’s life?
The point is that the attempts to plant blame on the right does not hold up given the killer
s own political views. You all are simply using a tragedy to stifle free political speech. You should be ashamed.
Well I made the mistake of reading Thomas the Papists blog and of course he’s not seeing the connection, and feels that right bares no responsiblity for this. I don’t even know why I check in there. I guess to see the opposite point of view, and feel shock as I read those points.
No, the political right bears no responsibility for this tragedy. This was a lunatic lefty who obsessed on a moderate Democrat. This is just an attempt to stifle political speech and it is quite despicable since you are doing so by using the shooting of a Congressman but also the death of a little girl. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.
Austin,
Chill.
No, who-ever-you-are, I will not “chill”. These people are using a murder to go after other good people. They are using a murder to score cheap political points and to stifle speech. No, I will not “chill”.
We all know Austin, our conservative friends have never used a tragedy to score cheap political points. Remember 09/11.
JLL specifically, and by name, targeted Rep. Giffords, who was a Democrat singled out by the Tea Party for defeat, for assassination. Why would JLL, as a liberal, want to kill her?
“Singled out by the Tea Party for assassination?”
You have no shame. This comment should be taken down, Minion.
To say that one group of Americans targeted this woman for assassination is beyond the pale even for Vox Nova. Minion, take this nasty bit of creepiness down.
The killer is a hater who identifies with the hatred spewing from the mouths and campaigns of violent people. Thoughts, words and symbols built on hatred create violence. Each person who does not take responsibility for the violence within themselves creates the killers we see around us right now. Those with the loudest mouths seem to be the angriest and they are seen everyday by millions of people who love to be a part of their cultural warfare. A lot of these people call themselves the “church militant”.
By the way, this will backfire on you politically. Americans have much more sense that the good Dr. Ronald. They understand who to blame. They blame the guy who did it. The more the left pushes the nonsense that this was Palin’s fault or other Republicans, the more Americans will think you are nuts yourselves.
Recent headline in the Daily Kos about the wounded Congressman:
“My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Yes, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Can we stop with the false equiavalence between violence on the right and left? Yes, there are dangerous and demented people all across the spectrum, but the difference is that the right has mainstreamed the extreme. Who could have thought the the violent langauge from Palin, the tea party, Fox News etc. would have become so dominant? Listen to Bobby Kennedy’s speech. It’s all there.
MM,
With all due respect, I think that main reason why the craziness on the left sounds more crazy and more mainstream within the right to you than the craziness on the left is because you identify broading with the left, and so you read a lot of the craziness there as harmless, whereas you consider the right to be wicked, and so you don’t see them as harmless.
If you want a calming of political dialog (and believe me, I certainly do, myself) a good first step would be to cool your own rhetoric. If everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, a nihilist, a warmonger, etc., then there can hardly be much goodwill or understanding, can there?
No, you are wrong. You have no idea how many times I’ve scolded people on the left for being sympathetic to people like Che Guevara. The issue is to take the violence out of the equation.
I most certainly believe you that you are principled in opposing violence, whether from the left or the right, and that you are willing to speak out against those who endorse leftist revolutionary violence.
But if you routinely hold that your opponents are fundamentally unreasonable, that they’re liars motivated by nihilism, etc., doesn’t that simply provide ammunition (if you will pardon the expression) to someone who may agree with you on the politics but not share your stance against violence — wouldn’t it naturally follow from the claim that those who oppose you are nothing but liars motivated by nihilism that “something will have to be done about them”, and after all, if you push a man so far that he lashes out, what can you expect?
It’s swell that you’re against violence personally and want to take away everyone’s guns and such, but if you really want to avoid violence (and just plain hate-fill rhetoric) in politics, then it would seem the first step would be assuming that your political opponents are motivated by good will but differing principles.
What do you mean by “opponents”? If you mean a certain shade of Republican that has concocted a fantasy version of the financial crisis, then “fundamentallly unreasonable” is the only way to describe it. There is a space for arguing, and a space for just throwing up one’s hands and walking away.
But none of this is related to the dark tones of rhetorical violence I am trying to address here. Darwin, look in your own backyward. Look at the recent comments of Joe Hargrave in which he indulges in paranoid fantasies that seem right out of Glenn Beck’s mind, about martial law and soviet style psychiatric wards. It’s precisely this kind of crap that adds fuel to the fire. It’s on a different level to merely being rude or uncharitable.
I do find that rhetoric disturbing.
The trick is, I find it disturbing because it sounds very much to me like the rhetoric that comes from folks like you and some of your fellow writers.
I don’t like it either from the people in my own back yard or coming across the no man’s land.
And frankly, how can you be surprised if people become angry and a little paranoid when you accuse them of being complicit in a murder they abhore. It makes people angry to be unjustly accused of being complicit in murder. I’m angry myself, I just deal with it differently.
From yesterday’s New York Times. Classmate said he was leftwing, liberal, radical even:
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
Hmmm…the left has not “mainstreamed” hateful and even dangerous political rhetoric?
Here was Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.” Plus, “This is a struggle of good and evil.” By “this,” Dean meant politics in general. “And we’re the good.” An editor of The New Republic wrote a piece called “The Case for Bush Hatred.” It began, “I hate President George W. Bush.”
Is Nazi stuff your concern? John Glenn said of Republican campaign rhetoric, “It’s the old Hitler business.” Al Gore said that the Bush administration was “unleash[ing] squadrons of digital brownshirts.” Julian Bond said of the Bushies, “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.” Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire. Garrison Keillor called Republicans “brownshirts in pinstripes.
Want more anyone?
Austin,
Also here how the left has used targets focused on Republican held districts. Much like those Palin used and held up in that case as evidence of the right’s “hate speech.”
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Fine let’s stop talking about political rhetoric and let’s talk about gun control. This same gun he used was banned under Clinton.
Is it the gun’s rate of fire or ammo capacity which you are concerned about?
I’m afraid I’m missing your point. First, this man broke a gun law. Then, he broke the law against shooting people. Is there some third law which you believe would have stopped this from happening?
Obviously there are some weapons that should not be owned by ordinary citizens. Whether or not the weapon Jared Loughner used should be one of them is not a bad question.
I think we should have an assult weapons ban. If you ask me, that would be what I would like. Why do you need a semiautomatic Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine for self defense? A rifle would be self defense. I know, that wont go over to well in this country. I’m a peacemaker.
And teh accusation against all of you..from Glenn Reynolds…
“To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?”
Austin Ruse to me:
“It is eye witness evidence, as a matter of fact and much more than you offer that he did this because of Palin/Limbaugh/Beck. Sheesh. Look in the mirror.”
Austin:
1. It is not evidence. It is anecdote.
2. Where did you read that I wrote “he did this because of Palin/Limbaugh Beck”?
3. “Sheesh. Look in the mirror.” I’m not sure what you’re implying here, or what you expect me to see when I look therein, but why are you making your argument personal? As the CCC exhorts us to do, we should all impute the best possible motives to one another, and your words here suggest that you are not doing that regarding me or my comment.
I am bowing out of this discussion now.
Do you not even read what you write?
Here’s you:
“It is simply irresponsible for politicians to suggest “Second Amendment remedies” to political or cultural disagreements. And it is willful blindness and deafness for those who self-identify on the right to pretend hateful rhetoric like Sharron Angle’s (and let’s not forget that, since Giffords’s attempted murder, Sarah Palin has scrubbed those bullseye targets off Giffords’s face and the faces of her Democratic colleagues on Facebook) has nothing whatsoever to do with this.”
Where did i get that someone said it was caused by Palin. Look in the mirror! I am not implying a darned thing. I am saying to you that you are shameful for suggesting the political right bears any responsibility for this crime.
Moreover, you assert this without a scintilla of evidence yet when one of his friends says he is a liberal, you say this is anecdote. Sister, i hope you are not a lawyer and if you are, you do not go to court.
I am saying to you that you are shameful for suggesting the political right bears any responsibility for this crime.
Oh, I think the political right bears some responsibility, but so does Hollywood, and gun manufacturers, and John Wilkes Booth, and the news media, and Jared Loughner’s parents (about which we have heard practically nothing, and who actually may bear significant responsibility), and the left, who no doubt bears some responsibility for making it almost impossible to commit mentally ill people, and on and on and on.
But I do think it is basically demagoguery to try to pin this on Sarah Palin, or the Tea Party, or the right. I do think some of the rhetoric from the right over the past couple of years has been reprehensible, but it seems to me that trying to pin the acts of an insane young man on any individual or political movement when his own “political” leanings bear no resemblance to anything on planet earth is reprehensible, too.
Having said that, we all know America is too violent, too much in love with guns, and mass shootings by deranged individuals are happening here but not in, say Japan or France.
I just thought you should know a few things about the people you helped into their graves and hospital beds this weekend.
Yes, you.
You false patriots who bring assault rifles to political rallies, you hack politicians and media personalities who lied through your stinking teeth about “death panels” and “Obama is coming for your guns” and “He isn’t a citizen” and “He’s a secret Muslim” and “Sharia Law is coming to America. The poison you injected into our culture is deeply culpable for this carnage.
http://www.truth-out.org/the-wrath-fools-an-open-letter-to-far-right66686
I am trying to figure out if that was directed at me, and if so, why.
There is simply no evidence that Jared Loughner was influenced by Palin, the Tea Party, or the right in general.
Don’t you think those with lying “stinking teeth” ought to be assassinated? Well, not me but someone probably does! See how that works, according to you anyway.
@David,
I’m sorry, that was not directed personally at you. I was reading what you said about Hollywood and everyone, and it made me think of that article and I was pasting and linkning and linked it there by accident. I should have clarified. Please accept my apology, it was more of an agreement with your statement. I was doing too many things at once yesterday.
“I am saying to you that you are shameful . . . ”
Honestly, Austin?
You call me “shameful” because you think I’m wrong.
You don’t even know me.
This is what I mean by making it personal.
And I find it especially jarring and unseemly coming from someone whose Friday Fax — not to mention fundraising appeals — appear regularly in my inbox, and which I always read, and with which I’ve found very little, if anything, ever to disagree.
Nevertheless, if I found something that went out under your name with which I disagreed, I would not call you “shameful.” Nor would I impute any other hateful quality to you.
I am finally bowing out of this conversation because of the ugliness of these personal attacks, especially those leveled by people in the public eye, who ought to know better. I’m turning off comment notification, so rest assured that you may continue to heap whatever shame on me you think I deserve, uncontested.
Incidentally, I’m no lawyer, so never fear. But you might want to consider that some of those against whom you are leveling personal attacks may be your allies and even your friends, or in a position to help you.
I say quite clearly that you are shameful for saying good people with whom YOU disagree are the cause of this.
Yes, you should bow out. One fewer person making these public and slanderous charges is a good thing.
Austin,
You and I may, on the surface, agree on a lot of issue. But believe, me you are doing us no favors by ranting on like this.
Seriously. Chill and find something else to do for a while. All you’re doing is making conservatives look like angry maniacs, which is not really the message of choice right now.
The best defense is not always a good offense. Often it’s just calm.
I am quite sure Pentimento et al, that if one of his friends said he watched Glenn Beck every night then the case would be closed.
How many people in this thread have actually listened to the full Bobby Kennedy speech” If you have not, stop commenting and do it now!!!
Minion,
This thread has taken the tack it has becuase you started it that way. You cast this in partisan terms.
also, I suggestion you go back adn listen to his speech and as you do think of yourself and your attitude toward George Weigel, Michael Novak and others you consider nihilists.
I listened to it at 4am this morning. The Holy Spirit must have been his speech writer. I made my comment after I listened to it. Thanks MM
I listed to the entire speech. I love how he said even one killing dishonors our nation. It was a very good speech.
Wasn’t it the Kennedy brothers who colluded to kill Ngo Dinh Diem and weren’t they colluding to kill Castro? Yes, those Kennedy brothers.
I don’t know about their plans to assassinate the above but I do know the speech he gave was inspired and we all should listen very carefully to it instead of dismissing it. Humility might be something gained from this.
Digby — here’s a good take on Krugman: http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2011/01/fighting-the-climate-of-hate-by-spreading-vicious-lies-tom-smith.html
Words matter. This is the truth. The media uses the right verse left rhetoric because it brings good ratings. That’s our culture. If we dont stop this culture which like this situation, can bring about deaths, then we will never be a better country. It’s not just the right, however, I am biased I think they are more to blame. I think William Rivers Pitt says it better than I can. (play Russian Roulette long enough in the media–someone will end up dead).
http://www.truth-out.org/the-wrath-fools-an-open-letter-to-far-right66686
Let’s just let the victim speak directly to those of Ruse’s ilk who’d seek to exonerate those, like Palin, who have fomented violence through their vicious rhetoric:
Ah yes, Ruse’s ilk. All those who resist cheap political posturing on teh graves of a little girl.
This clip is not relevant.
Check out all the Democrat websites with gun sites targeting political opponents, kids. Did they create the “climate” of right wing hate that killed that little girl? Or was it something to do with the fevered imagination of a left wing pot smoking flag burner?
digby,
There is no evidence that he was motivated by Palin or by the “Tea Party” or Limbaugh or “conservatives rhetoric”. As we learn more evidence about him, this is confirmed all the more.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about the appropriateness of heated rhetoric, what level of rhetoric is too much, the importance of civility in political dialogue, etc., that’s fine. That’s an important discussion to have. But separate it from the shooting, because it’s irresponsible for anyone to claim or even imply that Laughner was motivated by heated conservative rhetoric.
Sarah Palin didnt pull the trigger and Osama Bin Laden didnt fly the planes either!
lol Ok that was a joke. I just couldnt resist, because that would probably tip Austin right over the edge. Just playing with you Austin.
It is not that the Lady is a novice to the concept of getting certain folks all excited- remember how she claimed that Obama was palling around with Terrorist – just to have folks show up with weapons at political rallies. Perhaps she will finally learn from this – one would hope.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html
My experience tells me killers use whatever justification they can come up with, political or otherwise, to rationalize their actions. I have no reason to believe this person is any different.
But we all ought to pause and honestly see where we use the “my guy is just being passionate; your guy is dangerous” mindset and then do a better job of seeing things with the eyes of our Savior.
To accuse Palin, on the current state of evidence, of having “fomented violence,” is quite simply a baldfaced lie.
Those who fomented, supported, and implemented the Iraq war most assuredly didn’t desire the massacre of Christians that came out of it. But that does not mean they don’t bear some responsibility for the violence. Culture matters. So-called “conservatives” have been telling us this for years, and they have a point. But when it comes to violence, we find the mother of all blind spots.
Those who bombed the Copts in response to the Iraq War were acting opposite to Bush’s desires, having been provoked by him. At that point, if the gunman had been inspired by backlash against Democrats (which does not appear to be the case if Mother Jones’ reporting is to be believed) wouldn’t it be Obama supporters who were to blame for “pushing this guy too far”?
I’m going to bet you right now, Thales and Ruse, that that’s what his defense attorney is going to claim–that listening to all that Right-wing vitriol is what sent his nutcase of a client over the edge–and I’m going to bet you that that extremely skilled attorney–the one who saved the Unibomber’s life–is going to produce an awful lot of professional and medical evidence to prove it.
Then we’ll all have to sit back and listen to you churn out more contemptible “spin” about how the professional psychologists and psychiatrists are “leftists.”
You never stop, you never apologize, you’re incapable of self-criticism and you’re leading the country toward increasing civil strife. You’re just like the commentators HERE:
http://takimag.com/article/poisonous_politics/page_2
…who continue to justify violent rhetoric about overthrowing “the government.”
WHEN WILL YOU STOP? How many more have to die?
digby,
There is just as much evidence that Obama’s words about bringing a gun to the fight pushed him over the edge as Palin’s words — that is to say, none.
Personally, I’m against violent rhetoric. I’ve never tried to “justify” violent rhetoric. I don’t like it coming from the right or the left. I think it’s over the top on both sides. As I said, if you want to have a discussion about that, that’s fine. But let’s not make baseless accusations about what caused Laughner to go over the edge. That is not helpful to a fruitful discussion.
Darwin: “And frankly, how can you be surprised if people become angry and a little paranoid when you accuse them of being complicit in a murder they abhore. It makes people angry to be unjustly accused of being complicit in murder. I’m angry myself, I just deal with it differently.”
Ok, this is weird. People are pointing fingers at Palin, Beck, O’Reilly, Angle, Bachman, and other assorted gun-toting tea-party crazies – and people on a Catholic blog feel they are talking about them? This is a very interesting psychological moment.
[And it's not complicity in murder, except in the most remote sense. It'a about poisoning the culture in a way that makes these outcomes more likely. Honestly, the Catholic right have no problem stretching "complicity in murder" to absurd dimension when it comes to abortion, but as usual have problems with consistency].
OK, this thread is getting ridiculous, so I’m shutting it down. No more comments will get through. This thread was anyway meant to highlight Kennedy’s passionate denunciation of violence, rooted in Catholic themes of solidarity. My own views of the Giffords tragedy are drawn out in the the follow-up post, and I will accept comments there, assuming they are reasonable.