Gabrielle Giffords and Violent Rhetoric: Is Anyone to Blame for the Tuscon Tragedy?

===================================================


No single snowflake ever thinks it's to blame for the blizzard. 

No single hate-mongering preacher ever thinks he's to blame for homophobic hate crimes or gay suicide.

No single speaker of violent rhetoric ever thinks he's to blame for the hundreds of threats  given to politicians, or causing the atmosphere in which guns are dropped at a congresswoman's town hall meeting, or encouraging a madman to murder a doctor who provides abortions, or for causing a different madman to try to murder everyone who worked at the offices of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, or for causing a third madman to fly his plane into an IRS building, or even for the countless death threats given to union members who attend town hall meetings.

After all, who would blame a single snowflake for dangerous white-out conditions or any particular raindrop for the ensuing flood? 

Or would a sane society try to lessen the storm?

We will probably never understand what went through Jared Lee Loughner's head when he went on his killing spree, murdering 6 people and injuring another 14 in the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  We may never know what rhetoric he heard or even understood -- though we should also take into consideration that this was a very disturbed young man who thought words and grammar had the power of mind control.  We may also consider the sad state of mental health care in this country and the ease in which someone who is mentally ill can buy a semi-automatic weapon and extended cartridges.  

Then we will need to get square with the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum.  While we can all admit that an insane person can find almost anything to use as an excuse for a violent act, we have still created a climate which allows and encourages these things to occur fairly regularly.

Whether or not Loughner ever saw or acknowledged Sarah Palin's PAC site showing her opponents in the cross-hairs of a rifle, it's a safe bet she wouldn't want to see her own name or the names of her loved ones on such a site as she would understand that it is an implied threat.  Jesse Kelly probably didn't want Gabrielle Giffords to be assassinated when he posted his now infamous ad asking to remove Giffords by firing an M16 fully automatic rifle.  If the same ad "targeted" him instead of Giffords, do you think he would consider it a threat, veiled or otherwise?

Would you want to see your name or the names of your kids in such an ad?  If not, why not?  Is it that you feel a normal, well-adjusted person might act violently or is it rather because such an ad might light the fuse of someone who is already deranged?  What does this say about discourse in this country?


After Obama took office, threats against him increased by 400% compared to the threats received by George W. Bush.  Some of these will doubtless include threats made by white supremacists and other bigots who detest a shift in power toward someone who does not look like they.  While this is a factor it does not explain why the increase has been so dramatic, especially as his predecessor started two wars and used the Patriot Act to spy upon Americans.

To understand this sharp increase in threats we must face the fact that criticisms leveled against Obama have meant to alienate, infuriate and frighten a certain demographic.  To right-wing fanatics, Obama cannot simply be a black president who has a few differences of opinion.  That would make it hard to rally their base, as it would mean having to admit their own racism.  As I said in an earlier post, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" must be made into a foreign-born Muslim terrorist who wants to kill your grandmother and take away your guns, all due to reparations for slavery.  As I had stated:

The hate-mongering speeches of right-wing pundits play into these desires by feeding off of a certain demography's fears.  They understand that these actions are responses to phobias manufactured for people who feel that their way of life is being threatened. It is designed to create a manipulated response to most help those who are not in power, even if gaining power involves an atmosphere of violence. These are the five reasons people become terrorists, as listed by Dr. Jessica Stern:

1. Alienation
2. Humiliation
3. Demographics
4. History
5. Territory

We can apply those five traits to modern American political discourse.  Unfortunately, hate builds upon other hates.  Once a desired response has been manipulated, a few other hair-brained conspiracy theories will get repeated and accepted, which leads to bigger conspiracies being built with the acceptance that the earlier theories were entirely correct.  Hate becomes justified.  It enters the national dialog.  As it plays upon fears, an increasing number of people will determine that they need to be the heroes who save the country from a democratically-elected president.  

Nor are these threats entirely directed at the president.  The FBI started investigating threats made against Democratic congressmen after the passage of the health care bill.  These threats included Democratic lawmakers who saw their faces in the cross-hairs of a target.  Lynchburg Tea Party activist Mike Troxel claimed responsibility for posting the address of the brother of Rep. Tom Perriello, claiming he believed the address belonged to the congressman. 

"Just in case any of his friends and neighbors want to drop by and say hi and express their thanks regarding his vote for health care," he wrote. "I personally believe it's so important for representatives to remain fully grounded and to remember exactly what it is their constituents are saying and how they are telling them to vote. Nothing quite does that like a good face-to-face chat. It has a much more personal touch to it."

This act resulted in a propane line getting cut which led to a gas grill at the brother's house.  


In New York, a man who threw bricks the a congresswoman's window did so saying he thought it would "prevent civil war."  The same congresswoman also received calls which referred to "snipers".  Other house members saw pictures of nooses getting faxed to them or envelopes filled with a suspicious white powder.

In the meantime, we can keep insisting that no single thing led to the tragedy in Arizona or we can admit that a certain type of discourse has set the tone which leads to increasingly violent acts.  


This isn't about "war rhetoric" being used in political discussions.  We need to remember, town hall meetings and debates cannot happen in war zones.  Something has changed in American politics which has caused political opponents to be labeled as "enemies of the state" who need to be dealt with by any means possible.


A few days ago, headlines were made in Pakistan when thousands of demonstrators took to the streets demanding that a man be pardoned for murdering a "treasonous" and "immoral" liberal politician, who was trying to undermine their religion by showing tolerance toward a woman of a minority religion.  At the same time, American blogs and articles were filled with right-wing vitriol claiming Giffords "got what she deserved" for being a "traitor".  Her voting of health care legislation was considered "immoral". 


Is this who we want to become?  Should America become an armed theocracy where everyone who has an alternate opinion (or religion) is a "traitor" who should get killed?  We have heard this line used against everyone from Democratic lawmakers to Julian Assange, all calling for the same treatments normally reserved for the most dangerous terrorists.  


I am still calling for cooler heads to prevail.


We can admit that those who have extremely opposing views to our own can still be good, smart people who love their country.  We begin by embracing the fact that "intellectual" is not a dirty word and that only the weakest arguments must demonize an opponent.  We can peacefully demand that our media stop fanning the flames of hatred by airing violent rhetoric and instead ask for intelligent discourse.  Most of all, we can choose to no longer patronize those who sponsor vitriol.    


We don't have to let our national discourse get tainted by hate politics.  Democracy cannot survive in a climate of fear.



Edited to add:  I would encourage anyone reading this to also read this article by Crooks and Liars.  I can think of nothing to better explain how words repeated often enough get manipulated results.