Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[nab]

nab, your points are taken. Obviously we shouldn't directly blame any one or any party for the killings in the absence of all the facts. Those who do want to pin this squarely and definitively on some third party's shoulders are being irresponsible and unfair.

BUT, as I think many have been trying to say all along -- forget all that. Whether or not this attack had occurred, the fact remains that plenty on the GOP/Tea Party side have used violent rhetoric to promote their own political ambitions. It was irresponsible then and it remains irresponsible now. Perhaps this incident was needed to shine a spotlight on this rhetoric, if only on the mere possibility that the shootings were directly inspired by conservative huffing and puffing. If they weren't, it's still a conversation we need to have.

Politicizing the incident? Check out Fox News, and the banner on the front of its website right now. The "article" it links to basically calls out liberals as whiny, opportunistic meanies bent on "politicizing" the incident and blaming the right. If this article is an opinion piece -- it sure as hell reads like one -- it's not identified as such. And let's allow that there are those on the left who are indeed using this as an opportunity to lob what Fox is calling "cheap shots." Still, Fox and conservatives are resolutely burying their heads in the sand (or up their own asses) by using the opportunity to focus on "politicization" by the left and ignoring the argument that the rhetoric coming from their own ranks was never appropriate from day one. So now the conservative side is either grossly in denial about the tone of their speech (some of it), or they are cynically ignoring an opportunity to have an important discussion (one that makes them look bad) by instead choosing to "politicize" the conversation.

Meanwhile, the front page of msnbc.com asks, "Can shootings lead to an era of political civility?" The answer is an obvious "no" when already we're now mired in debates over which side is "politicizing" the episode the most.

Well said.  I agree with you about the politicizing and the need to tone down political rhetoric.  I was concerned initially that incipient reactions to the event may lead to a concerted attempt to stifle conservative dialogs.  I saw this as inappropriate, mainly because there was no proven connection to the events and rightist rhetoric.  To me, it was entirely plausible that this guy was influenced by rightist rhetoric, but it was equally plausible he was inspired by Halo.  Since we didn't see any concrete connection between the two, it seemed highly inappropriate to me to use the events, which are obviously emotionally charged, as a springboard for making a political stance.

I may have been a little hasty in my jump to conclusions about a concerted effort to stifle conservative dialog. I don't believe this detracts entirely from my main point: this event is in the active process of politicization; a process that will undoubtedly continue unabated until the next opportunity to take a jab at the other side presents itself, the appropriateness of that jab notwithstanding.   


I may be cynical, but I think that it is going to take more than conversation to begin to bring the country back together again.  The concentration of financial capital into the hands of fewer and fewer people gravely concerns me.  The fact that people still rely on mythology in approaching environmental control concerns me.  These concerns are more environmental than they are causal though.  In thinking about causal phenomena, I only think I am barely beginning to scratch the surface.  For instance, I think that although most political dialog is presented as "issues" and "conversation", what people are really grovelling for is control over the cultural dialog of the country, much of which is mired in our own romanticized images of ourselves and the events of the 19th and 20th century.   

[sls.stormyrider]

nab, I agree that we can never prove, nor will never know, how the violent rhetoric affected this guy. maybe it didn't. maybe, on his own, he just wanted to off her.

either way, the violent rhetoric doesn't help, and there is NO place for it in public discourse. as my HS English teacher used to say when one of us cursed, "there are enough words in the English language..."

shame on the leaders of any party to not try and rein it in. It's fine for Boehner to say "an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us". I'd like to hear him say we need to calm things down. I'd like to hear him discredit some of the outright lies (ie "death panel") that his party has been using for political purposes. He won't, of course, but he should.

it goes without saying that Obama should call out members of his party that do the same thing. it also goes without saying that the hateful, violent rhetoric has been coming from largely the right (recently, at least)

[PIE-GUY]

Krugman speaks some truth...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html

Climate of Hate - NYTimes.com

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton's election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It's true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn't mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

And there's not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it's "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 vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.

It's important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It's not a general lack of "civility," the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there's a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren't the same as incitement.

The point is that there's room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it's the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and dangerous" without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there's a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you'll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won't hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O'Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that's what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there's a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn't excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It's really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what's happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?

If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn't, Saturday's atrocity will be just the beginning.

[Hicks]

I <3 Krugman. 

"Are you Paul Krugman?"

"I am"

"My dad loves your shit."

[VDB]

[W]ill they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual...

Obviously, yes. In an effort to save face. Still...

[Will they] go on as before?

I think they know they can't, to a degree. Palin has already taken down her "gun sights" map, and because of the extra sensitivity and alertness we'll now see to these things, I think there will be some measure of care taken to avoid the overtly insurrectionist language. But it will be done without admission or announcement.

[sls.stormyrider]

as long as it's done.

and if it's not done, those in charge should call the offenders out

[VDB]

This ironic juxtaposition is apparently one of several combinations of page elements that load onto Glenn Beck's site. Still kinda funny and sad and surprising and unsurprising and whatever:

[Hicks]

This ironic juxtaposition is apparently one of several combinations of page elements that load onto Glenn Beck's site. Still kinda funny and sad and surprising and unsurprising and whatever:

Do you think he still holds his gun while he prays for peace?

[sls.stormyrider]

he caresses it ever so tenderly

[Buffalo Budd]

A great man once said, 'happiness is a warm gun'.

[twatts]

A great man once said, 'happiness is a warm gun'.

and ironically, said man was shot...

[Buffalo Budd]

Touche

[sls.stormyrider]

[rowjimmy]

 

[PIE-GUY]

"It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we talk to each other on TV."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction