Tuesday, January 11, 2011

A Reflection on Our Times

It would be easy to blame the tragic shooting in Arizona on the ugly political rhetoric that has dominated our political discourse during the last two years. There can be little dispute, after all, that the majority of the most irresponsible outbursts of late have originated from right-wing elements of American society. It is tempting, therefore, to blame Sarah Palin, as some in the media have, for repeatedly using the phrase “Don’t retreat, reload” and for displaying on her Facebook page the crosshairs of a rifle scope targeting selected members of Congress, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the talented and popular congresswoman shot in the head during Saturday’s mass shooting. It is tempting as well to blame the treasonous statements of Sharron Angle, who talked of “domestic enemies” in the U.S. Congress during her Senate campaign in Nevada and “hope[d]” that “Second Amendment remedies” would not be necessary. It would be easy to blame the anti-government vitriol of such right-wing talk show hosts and commentators as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter, who routinely use heightened and emotionally charged language to fire up their audiences. But although violent rhetoric has become a part of the nation’s political climate, there is no point in laying blame on any political party or commentator for what happened in Arizona.

The fact is that we are a violent country, and a big country, and some of our citizens are mentally and emotionally unstable. America has a long history of political violence that has resulted in the assassinations of four presidents and attempts on the lives of six others. Credible threats are made against President Obama almost daily and extraordinary security measures are an unfortunate fact of life for virtually all modern U.S. presidents. Members of Congress, federal judges, prosecutors – all have experienced a rise in threat levels in recent years. We are a nation that loves its guns and we make it excessively easy for most anyone to obtain one, especially in Arizona. We depict gruesome violence in our movies, in our television shows and video games, and then feign surprise when mentally unhinged people act on those images. We live in a violent country that values individual freedoms – the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the freedom of association – even at the expense of public safety.

Whatever demons or voices may have influenced Jared Lee Loughner, it was American democracy that was assaulted by his actions, American civic engagement that suffered the most severe setback. As Speaker of the House John Boehner eloquently stated in canceling this week’s legislative agenda, “An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.” Indeed, the tragedy in Tucson was an attack on the soul of this nation.

In my lifetime, this country has repeatedly experienced intense political divisions coupled with violence against our leaders. During the 1960’s, with the country angrily divided over Vietnam and civil rights, when civil unrest infested our cities, we lived through the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. The 1970’s brought us Kent State and Watergate, school busing and Roe v. Wade, and the nation remained divided and angry. In 1972, presidential candidate George Wallace was shot in the stomach during a campaign rally. During a seventeen-day stretch in September 1975, two attempts were made on the life of President Gerald Ford. In 1981, John Hinckley stood outside the Washington Hilton and shot President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, Bob Brady, as they walked to the presidential motorcade waiting curbside. During the cultural wars of the 1990s, when we fought over gun control and abortion rights, right-wing extremists blew up abortion clinics and Timothy McVeigh committed the mass murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City.

That this country is divided on political and philosophical grounds is nothing new. From debates over federalism and state’s rights, slavery and civil rights, women’s suffrage and prohibition, Vietnam and abortion, we have been frequently split at the seams. In the 19th century, we faced secession and civil war; a century later, civil unrest, non-violent protest, and cries of “America, love it or leave it.” When John Kennedy went to Dallas in November 1963, Texas was awash in right-wing anger, fueled by the John Birch Society, over Kennedy’s handling of the Cold War, school desegregation, and federal interference with state’s rights. Leaflets containing the president’s photograph and “WANTED FOR TREASON” circulated throughout the city. When United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson visited Dallas earlier that fall, he was spit on by angry protestors. As ugly and grotesque as much of the political rhetoric has been recently – particularly during debates over health care and immigration – it is, unfortunately, not exceptional. It also is largely disconnected from the troubled miscreants who assassinate our leaders or fire assault weapons on crowds of innocent people.

We may never know precisely what motivated Loughner to shoot a popular and well-liked congresswoman, or why he opened fire on a group of innocent citizens, wounding fourteen people and killing six, including a federal judge, a nine-year-old girl, a congressional staffer, and three elderly citizens. Although he espoused anti-government passions, all we really know is that Loughner was a very troubled soul, a mentally disturbed man with a semi-automatic weapon and an abundance of ammunition. In the days ahead, we likely will learn of numerous red flags and warning signals that went unheeded, clues of his severe emotional instability, actions and words committed long before Saturday morning’s shooting that should have given many people pause.

Much of the commentary I have read so far on this matter has brushed over a principal issue: The refusal of this country to treat mental illness properly, and the lack of adequate mental health counseling in schools and communities. As long as we refuse to deal intelligently with mental illness, including its diagnosis and treatment, tragedies like what occurred in Arizona will continue to be repeated throughout the country.

The events in Arizona should also make us question, once and for all, the foolishness of a gun-culture which allows an apparently mentally unstable young man easy access to a semi-automatic weapon. A sensible and mature society places limits on who may lawfully own and carry such weapons. Yet we are the most armed nation on earth. With nine guns for every ten U.S. citizens, only Yemen, at seven guns per citizen, comes even close. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, since 1968 more than one million people in the United States have been killed with guns (accidents and suicides included). Is it any wonder that the majority of mass shootings happen in the United States? Is it surprising that we lead the world in gun deaths and homicides?

And yet, there are risks associated with a toxic political culture. Regardless of Loughner’s political influences and motives – his political views appear undisciplined and non-sensical, influenced perhaps by a variety of fringe ideologies – it would do us no harm to tone down our rhetoric, to refrain from speech that blames and accuses, that treats our opponents as not just wrong but evil, and instead discover words of hope and understanding. While ugly political rhetoric and acts of incivility in politics have been a part of the body politic since our early history, the consequences of our words and images are today more far reaching and fall on the rational and irrational, the sane and insane alike. What has changed is technology – cable television, the internet, and a 24-hour news cycle. “What’s different about this moment,” according to Matt Bai of the New York Times, “is the emergence of a political culture — on blogs and Twitter and cable television — that so loudly and readily reinforces the dark visions of political extremists, often for profit or political gain.” Whatever Loughner’s politics, “it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.”

I do not believe that the tragedy in Tucson was the direct result of irresponsible political rhetoric. But if the horrific events of last Saturday shock the American conscience into more thoughtful and respectful discourse, if it forces our schools and communities to better address mental health issues, if it awakens us to the need for more restrictive gun laws, then it will have left a positive legacy on our nation’s history. Solving our economic, political, and military problems is hard work that requires careful deliberation, compromise and discipline. It cannot be achieved with angry denunciations and the demonization of our opponents. Nor does it serve our nation to lay blame on our opponents for the acts of a disturbed man beyond our control. Anger is easy; empathy, understanding, and compassion requires personal strength and discipline. We must learn, as Jim Wallis writes in Sojourners, “to relate to others with whom we disagree on important issues without calling them evil” and understand that our words “fall upon the balanced and unbalanced, stable and unstable, the well-grounded and the unhinged, alike.”

21 comments:

  1. As I have thought about it, really, it falls at the intersection of three issues. All three played a role.

    1. Mental health and how we deal with it.

    2. Firearms and how we deal with them; and

    3. The increasingly violent nature of our rhetoric.

    Allow me to address the last first. Did Laughner shoot his parents? Nope. Community college classmates? Nope. Old boss? Nope. High school jocks who tormented him? Nope.

    He shot a congress person. A congress person who herself said that the violent nature of our discourse would have consequences. A congress person in a district where the sherriff says the discourse is a problem. A congress person whose office was vandalized shortly after being on the target list. A congress person in a district where the discourse is uniquely bad.

    And who could we expect to do this? Of course it was going to be someone with mental health issues. It was going to be those on the fringes, not those with sound minds, good jobs, homes and good prospects.

    Though less so than you, I've done enough work in the criminal justice system and with the mentally Ill to know how fragile that system is and how many more Laugners are out there.

    And of course, the way we regulate firearms, particularly modern ones, played a role.

    The ultimate point is that withou all three of these issues, I suspect this may not have happened. That includes our discourse. That we have a history of it does not excuse it. It's probably more odious than in the past because some ofbthe offenders are not the mere irresponsible elected official, but people whose words are calculated to inspire controversy, division, and anger to secure eyes, ears, advertising dollars and book sales.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    These are all great points. I think you nailed it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark,

    It would be easy to blame the tragic shooting in Arizona on the ugly political rhetoric that has dominated our political discourse during the last two years. There can be little dispute, after all, that the majority of the most irresponsible outbursts of late have originated from left-wing elements of American society. It is tempting, therefore, to blame the liberal web site “Daily Kos,” although, of course, no conservative media has done so, for providing a platform for a blogger to announce that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was “Dead to me” because she wasn’t liberal enough. The same website used a bullseye target to reference the representative, a popular, non-offensive, Democrat and self described supporter of the Second Amendment. It is tempting as well to blame the violent statements of Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski, who talked of putting Republican Governor Rick Scott up against a wall and shooting him. It would be easy to blame the pro-big government vitriol of such left-wing talk show hosts and commentators as Randi Rhodes (imagining the fun of shooting President Bush), Chris Matthews (Imagining the fun of blowing up Rush Limbaugh) and Bill Maher (imagining the lives saved if Vice President Cheney would just die), who routinely use heightened and emotionally charged language to fire up their audiences. But although violent rhetoric has become a normal part of the left’s tactics, there is no point in laying blame on any political party or commentator for what happened in Arizona, even though we could, if we wanted to, but we don’t, so we won’t, although if you want to. . .

    The fact is that, like every country on the planet, violence sometimes occurs, and some of our citizens, like citizens of every country on the planet, are mentally and emotionally unstable. America has a long history of political violence that has resulted in the assassinations of four presidents and attempts on the lives of 11 others, yet unlike similar acts of violence in countries too numerous to mention, these violent acts were not part of coups designed to alter or abolish our government or way of life. Credible threats have been made against most, if not all, presidents and extraordinary security measures are a fact of life for every powerful leader on the entire planet. We are a nation that loves our freedoms and the guns that insure those freedoms and some states make it easy for law abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right, while other states, unfortunately, deny or obstruct that freedom to their citizens. Liberal Hollywood glorifies evil men in movies like “Goodfellas” and “Scarface” depicting them as heroes while they engage in gruesome violence, and then feigns surprise when mentally unhinged people say they were inspired by “Natural Born Killers” or “Taxi Driver.” We live in a country that values individual freedoms – the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the freedom of association – but we do not tolerate when one man’s freedom infringes on another man’s freedom.

    Whatever demons or voices may have influenced Jared Lee Loughner, it was innocent citizens that were assaulted by his actions, but those actions had nothing to do with politics and his madness will not in any way limit or expand the nature of American civic engagement and discourse. As Speaker of the House John Boehner eloquently stated in canceling this week’s legislative agenda, “An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve,” echoing our legal philosophy that an attack on any citizen is an attack on all citizens. Indeed, the tragedy in Tucson was an attack on the soul of this nation, that is, if the nation still had its soul, which, as was outlined in previous posts, it doesn’t because it was lost with the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Throughout her history, this country has repeatedly experienced intense political divisions coupled with violence against our leaders. In the really important part of this country’s history (meaning since my birth), we have seen the country angrily divided over Vietnam and civil rights, when civil unrest infested our cities (except in Philadelphia where Frank Rizzo knew how to handle criminals); we lived through the assassination of John Kennedy by a Communist, Robert Kennedy by a anti-Zionist Jordanian nationalist, Martin Luther King, Jr., by a fugitive from justice and Malcolm X, the former member of the racist Nation of Islam by members in good standing of the racist Nation of Islam (who have since been freed to hunt again). The 1970’s brought us left-wing radicals who burned down the ROTC building at Kent State and then fired first at National Guardsmen, Watergate, notable as an example of how a disgraced president puts the well being of the country ahead of his naked thirst for power, forced school busing that denied parents their right to control the education of their children and Roe v. Wade, which denied men the right to protect their own child from slaughter. Through it all the nation remained composed of individuals with differing opinions. The 1970’s also ushered in left-wing extremists such as the Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, the May 19th Communists Organization, the FMLN, the RAM, and the United Freedom Front, to name a few, who murdered and exploded their way into eventual respectability in the eyes of one commander in chief and pardons by another. In 1972, Democratic presidential candidate and segregationist George Wallace was shot in the stomach during a campaign rally by Arthur Bremer, who had previously failed to assassinate President Nixon (in 2007 Bremer was released from prison to hunt again). During a seventeen-day stretch in September 1975, two attempts were made on the life of President Gerald Ford, by two wingnuts who are also free today to hunt again. In 1981, John Hinckley stood outside the Washington Hilton and shot President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, James Brady, as they walked to the presidential motorcade waiting curbside. He was subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity by an increasingly insane criminal justice system. This decade also witnessed left-wing extremists committing “three-fourths of the officially designated acts of domestic terrorism in the United States during the 1980s,” according to a study by the Department of Energy. During the cultural wars of the 1990s, when we fought over gun rights and baby killing, right-wing extremists blew up abortion clinics and Timothy McVeigh committed the mass murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City. And in the 10 years between 1988 and 1998, leftist organizations were responsible for 74 percent (10,198 people) of all victims killed by the 10 major terrorist groups operating in the world during this time period.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This country’s division on political and philosophical grounds has its roots in our founding. From debates over federalism and state’s rights, slavery and civil rights, women’s suffrage and prohibition, Vietnam and abortion, we have always been split at the seams. In the 19th century, we faced secession and civil war; a century later, civil unrest, violent and occasionally non-violent protest, and cries of “America, love it or leave it” and "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" When John Kennedy went to Dallas in November 1963, Texas was awash in right-wing anger, fueled in small part by the fringe John Birch Society, but mainly over Kennedy’s handling of the Cold War, which left heroes dead on the beaches of Cuba and further inland, live Communist missiles. Leaflets containing the president’s photograph and “WANTED FOR TREASON” circulated throughout the city and foreshadowed Hitler moustaches on pictures of President Bush 40 years later. When United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson visited Dallas earlier that fall, he was spit on by angry protestors. Since then, thankfully, spitting has only reared its ugly head in the grotesque imaginations of Democrats desperate to slander Tea Partiers who dared “speak truth to power.” Passions still run high of course, and whether it is the measured and reasonable chants of “Kill the bill!” or the despicable accusations that the Republicans’ idea of health care is that Americans die quickly, it is nevertheless completely disconnected from the troubled miscreants who kill our leaders or fire assault weapons on crowds of innocent people.

    We of course know much about what motivated Loughner to shoot a popular and well-liked congresswoman, and why he opened fire on a group of innocent citizens. He was quite open about his views and so scared Pima Community College that they kicked him out, although probably not because his favorite book was the "Communist Manifesto." Well before Governor Palin used crosshairs, and years before Democratic Strategist Bob Beckel used them, Loughner had expressed his displeasure of Congresswoman Giffords. Although he espoused anti-government passions, what we really know is that Loughner was a very troubled wingnut, a mentally disturbed man with a semi-automatic weapon and an abundance of ammunition. In the days ahead, we likely will learn of numerous red flags from, among other sources, the Pima County Sheriff who would rather blame Rush Limbaugh than release police records describing their contacts with Loughner, and we will learn of warning signals that went unheeded, clues of his severe emotional instability, actions and words committed long before Saturday morning’s shooting that should and did give many people pause.

    Much of the commentary I have read so far on this matter has brushed over a principal issue: The refusal of this country to treat mental illness properly, and the lack of adequate mental health counseling in schools and communities. As long as we refuse to deal intelligently with mental illness, defined of course by people with correct political views, including its diagnosis and treatment, tragedies like what occurred in Arizona will continue to be repeated throughout the country. Dealing intelligently will also mean taking on the ACLU, which has always defended the rights of crazy people to live on the streets and not take their medicine.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  6. The events in Arizona should also make us question, once and for all, the foolishness of a gun-control culture which expects gun dealers to consult crystal balls that would disclose as yet unwritten police reports and mental health evaluations concerning the apparently mentally unstable young man. A sensible and mature society also embraces the fine art of profiling, the most incompetent practitioner of which would have immediately flagged any man who is the spitting image of Uncle Fester. We are the most armed nation on earth. With nine guns for every ten U.S. citizens, only Yemen, at seven guns per citizen, comes even close, which means, apparently, that they are only two guns away from embracing real democracy in which all people, not just Muslims, are created equal. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, since 1968 more than one million people in the United States have been killed with guns (accidents and suicides included, as well as bad guys killed by good guys and bad guys killed by other bad guys). Oddly enough though, as more people purchase guns the gun violence continues to drop. According to the NRA and FBI statistics, “Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million.” Clearly the government has a duty to spend some of the stimulus money to purchase guns for all those law-abiding citizens who haven’t yet done their civic duty.

    And yet, there are risks associated with a toxic political culture. Regardless of Loughner’s political influences and motives, it would do us no harm to politely ask the president to tone down his rhetoric, to refrain from talk of ass-kicking, the bringing of guns to knife fights, the stupidity of police officers, the need to get in one another’s faces, the use of pitchforks against CEOs, and the need to punish one’s (political) enemies. Ugly political rhetoric and acts of incivility in politics have been a part of the body politic since our early history. What has changed is technology – cable television, the internet, and a 24-hour news cycle. This explosion of information has allowed Americans a greater access to the truth. No longer can a Dan Rather produce lies in an attempt to destroy a good man’s political career. No longer can a politician claim war hero status without those who served with him having a soap box of equal size. Now when politicians pass 2,000 page bills they haven’t read, they do so knowing hundreds of enterprising bloggers are actually reading the bill and posting for the world to see just what mischief is buried deep inside. Newspapers with hidden agendas like the New York Times are quickly being replaced by Internet wordsmiths who proudly proclaim their bias but challenge readers to prove their facts wrong. The politicians who fear it, do so because their elite mindset tells them that the American public hasn’t the mental capacity to sort through the data and come to an informed decision. But of course they can and they do and the result is a call from the elites to control the Internet.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  7. The murders in Tucson had nothing at all to do with political rhetoric of any type. But if the horrific events of last Saturday shock the American conscience into being cowed and afraid to express their passions, if it encourages politicians to further legislate against thought by expanding useless and Orwellian hate-crime laws or reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, if it encourages more restrictive gun laws stripping through regulations rights preserved by our Founding Fathers, then it will have left a lasting scar across our nation’s history. Solving our economic, political, and military problems is hard work that requires Republicans to resell the founder’s ideas to the American people without compromising an inch with a party dead-set on bringing this country to her knees. It can be achieved by the passionate advancement of our policies while at the same time relentlessly exposing the lies and illogic of our opponents. Saving our country requires every citizen to do their duty, and that duty, as Glenn Beck reminds us, is to become more enlightened, more educated, more empowered and more entrepreneurial. The American people know the difference between a psychotic nut job, a slick politician and a dedicated public servant. The last thing they’ve needed these past few days is to be told the obvious: Uncle Fester had a bad brain and his actions had nothing to do with Sarah Palin or Barack Obama.

    Balance. It does a body good.

    Rich R.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rich,

    In between the plagiarism and sarcasm, I am trying to discern whether you are in agreement with my fundamental point -- that the shooting in Tucson was caused not by anyone's political rhetoric, left or right, but by a mentally disturbed man who had easy access to a semi-automatic gun (which he bought without a hitch at a gun store in Tucson just five weeks before the mass shooting). I think we are in agreement on this point, but honestly, I really cannot tell, because you are so intent on making points that have nothing to do with anything I have written, and which actually helps make my other point -- that it would do us no harm to tone down our rhetoric. The fact is, while it is clear that nobody's political statements or imagery are to blame for the shooting, and while sane and rational persons don't shoot innocent people because of what they hear on the radio, mentally unhinged people are different. Who knows what makes them go off.

    Yes, the overheated rhetoric has effected people on the left as well as the right. But during the last two years, the "majority" (not "all") of violent political rhetoric has originated from the right. But so what? They are merely words and images, and as a staunch free speech proponent, while some arguments may not be polite, they make for a vibrant and lively debate. But on some level, words do matter, and it would be better (not legally required) if public figures and public commentators on the left and the right exercised civility, respect, and commonsense when they engaged in political debate.

    I cannot understand why, but you seem almost psychotic whenever I write about the need for civility and respect in our political discourse. Read your words -- not just those above, but from the "majority" of your comments on this blog. You talk as if those who disagree with you are evil, and you attempt to lump moderately liberal commentators like me with groups as divergent and irrelevant as the ACLU, left-wing extremists, the Weather Underground, and the Black Liberation Army (by the way, I have never read the Daily Kos, I have never heard of Randi Rhodes, and I don't personally like Bill Maher, who as I have pointed out in past essays is obnoxious and offensively and aggressively anti-religion).

    In any event, I think you could have made your points far more effectively had you simply stated them more clearly and concisely. I enjoy debating ideas and philosophies and politics with people with whom I disagree. But a true debate can only occur between people who accept the legitimacy and sincerity of the other side, regardless of how much they may disagree on the causes, explanations, and solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Rich,

    Wow, sir, you have outdone yourself. Not only is copying and pasting my father's piece and then literally twisting the words to your advantage juvenile and lazy, it is hilarious (like when you realize someone is so full of themselves that it becomes a kind of fun game to poke them with a stick and see how they boil).

    A few weeks ago there was a story on the news about a group of six girls who got together and made a facebook group called "Attack a Teacher Day". They invited one hundred other students to join it. After it was posted, a boy went into his high school(even if you are not invited to the group, you can still see it and all of it's details) and shot both his assistant principal and principal, killing the assistant principal and then taking his own life. This mentally unstable boy saw this post and acted on it, because he could not tell the difference between a horrible joke and reality and thought killing his principals was the right thing to do. Had he never had access to a gun, this tragedy would never have occurred.

    There is zero necessity for a normal citizen to have a semi-automatic assault weapon. These guns are specifically designed to kill people, they are killing machines, and they should be restricted to the police and the military. Do you really want everyone, stable and unstable, good and evil, to have access to a killing machine, walking down the same street as your daughter? New bullets are designed all the time to more effectively kill -- cop-killing bullets that can shoot through bullet-proof vests. Self defense does not require a semi-automatic gun and a 31-bullet clip. To protect yourself, if you are so inclined, a normal revolver would do just fine (as long as you could get it out from under your pillow in time to shoot the burglar in the pitch black and not your wife who is coming out of the bathroom). Personally, a good watch dog is the best defense. No one would come through the door at my mom's house when they hear the sound of our standard black poodle. Even the ex-Marine next door is scared to death of her bark.

    Are you willing to look into the grieving eyes of Christina Taylor Greene's mother and tell her that the man who killed her nine-year-old daughter had every right to have that gun because he passed the incredibly ineffective background check? Do you really think it was responsible of the gun dealer, background check, crystal ball or not, to sell Loughner the semi-automatic Glock with multiple clips?You have to be psychotic to give someone you met for only a few minutes a machine that has the ability to kill tens of people in seconds.

    If the right to bear arms outweighs the right of innocent people to be safe, feel safe, and live, then something is wrong.

    Hannah

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mark,

    What I found offensive about your post and previous posts is the constant slandering without cause of conservatives, aka the right-wing (either is acceptable by the way). You made charges that I rebutted using actual examples and I tried, once again, to bring balance to a post that has a serious point in the center of silliness. Take the beginning of your post: “There can be little dispute, after all, that the majority of the most irresponsible outbursts of late have originated from right-wing elements of American society.” Silly and unsupportable by facts, as I illustrated. No one on the right has suggested lining up people and shooting them. No one on conservative talk radio has pretended to shoot President Obama. The fact that you don’t know Randi Rhodes is irrelevant. She is on the left and makes irresponsible outbursts. The fact that you don’t like Bill Maher is irrelevant (although a relief); he is a very popular and disturbed liberal who makes irresponsible outbursts. Your post could have survived criticism if you at least faked fairness and said both sides are equally guilty of saying inappropriate things on occasion.

    The point of my parody was to demonstrate the emptiness of your charges. If your post could be so easily rewritten to make the charge applicable against liberals then the original charge is without merit. And I might add, I made a much stronger case, with more examples.

    While trying to make a simple point: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never force me to kill you,” you made numerous charges that are not true and I tried to counter them.

    “We are a nation that loves its guns and we make it excessively easy for most anyone to obtain one, especially in Arizona.” Ever try to get a concealed carry permit in New Jersey? The truth is that it is not excessively easy for American’s to exercise this right. Some states, in fact, make it exceedingly difficult.

    “We live in a violent country that values individual freedoms – the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the freedom of association – even at the expense of public safety.” How many studies do you need before you accept that violence goes down as more people exercise their Second Amendment right; that public safety increases in direct proportion to the number of law abiding citizens who are carrying guns? At some point, you have to say that you just don’t like guns, find them icky and gross, and advocate for an amendment to the Constitution. At least that would be an honest position.

    “…it was American democracy that was assaulted by his actions, American civic engagement that suffered the most severe setback.” How? In what way did a psycho killing people have anything to do with “civic engagement”? If you think violence is a threat to civic engagement then your blog should be filled with rants against the harm done to civic engagement and free speech by Islamic terrorists who have so cowed the press that they blame the artist for drawing and newspaper for printing a perfectly proper cartoon of Muhammad, instead of blaming the murderers. Where in your countless posts has there even been a hint of criticism? And there you have a direct relationship between violence and a self-censoring of the exercise of free speech. Uncle Fester did not say he would commit murder because he did not like what the congresswoman said or because of what the fetching Ann Coulter said about the congresswoman. But Islamic terrorists have said just that.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  11. “…right-wing extremists blew up abortion clinics and Timothy McVeigh committed the mass murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City.” Like your opening paragraph there is no attempt at even handedness. You talk of the 1970’s never mentioning the much more dangerous “left-wing” wingnuts, but are happy to mention right-wingers in the ‘90’s. So my comments here where three fold: to counter your gaping omissions, which would have brought balance; to point out that guns are not the problem, but a coddling criminal justice system and to elaborate why Americans had a right to be “angry.”

    “…and cries of “America, love it or leave it.” There’s those angry conservatives again, although, of course, there was incivility on both sides, which I once again balanced. And I left out those sweet liberals yelling “Baby killer!” at our soldiers.

    “Although he espoused anti-government passions…” This is code, of course, for “evil conservative,” and is completely unnecessary to your supposed point and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the conservative mindset.

    “…the foolishness of a gun-culture…” Like so much of what you write, you seem to think that there are universal truths that need no explanation, hence your love of declarative statements like the above and “It would be easy to blame,” and “There can be little dispute,” and “The fact is.” It brings to mind Reagan’s quip that, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Unless you can dispute the statistics, there is no logic to “the foolishness of a gun-culture,” especially when deaths goes down despite an expanding population and an increasing number of gun owners. In fact, the statistics make perfect sense, since any machine that kills indiscriminately and is such a danger, would not be so sought after by so many people. But people, pursuing their own best interests, have determined that gun ownership is one of many tools they believe contribute to their safety. And the results prove them right. You have an irrational fear of guns that would be cured in a heartbeat if you found yourself at the mercy of a killer with nothing but a rolled up New York Times to protect you. “A gun is a tool, Marion.” How many times do we have to go over this?

    “A sensible and mature society places limits on who may lawfully own and carry such weapons.” Um, we do. Honest, law-abiding citizens are allowed to exercise their constitutional right.

    “…that treats our opponents as not just wrong but evil…” Examples? I may be wrong, but I don’t think anyone, with the exception of the fetching Ann Coulter, has called liberals evil. What is deemed evil are the results of their ideology, such as millions of Americans trained for the last 60 years to believe the government will take care of them from the cradle to the grave. That certainly is evil, but the liberals and sellout conservatives who dreamed up these entitlements weren’t, in all likelihood, evil. Well, maybe Hillary. But I’m sure that’s it.

    “…it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.” So do you or do you not believe Uncle Fester was motivated by violent rhetoric? Doesn’t this go against your point already made so weak by cautious qualifiers?

    “I do not believe that the tragedy in Tucson was the direct result of irresponsible political rhetoric.” Really, we’re gonna need a ruling here.

    “…to relate to others with whom we disagree on important issues without calling them evil…” Back to evil again. I gave some examples of some pretty evil comments by Democrats, so maybe you were thinking about them, but I doubt it.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your essay can be summarized this way: Violent rhetoric on the right may not have directly influenced Loughner to kill but Republicans should shut up anyway. My proof: “right-wing elements,” “right-wing talk show hosts,” “right-wing extremists,” and “right-wing anger.” You can’t claim balance where none exists and these examples and more were not put in proper perspective.

    Now Mark, you know how I like facts and examples -- my first response was filled with them -- so please, what were the points I made that had nothing to do with anything you wrote?

    Now regarding your recent comments: “But during the last two years, the "majority" (not "all") of violent political rhetoric has originated from the right. But so what?” First, where did the qualifying “last two years” come from? And, once again, we have another statement that cannot be supported. In fact I would gamble that for every outrageous thing a conservative said, I could fire back with two or more from the left. But I’d settle for both sides are equally to blame and then balance the charge with examples on both sides.

    “I cannot understand why, but you seem almost psychotic whenever I write about the need for civility and respect in our political discourse. Read your words -- not just those above, but from the "majority" of your comments on this blog. You talk as if those who disagree with you are evil,” This gets old, but. . . a few examples would help your case. Apparently there are many from which to choose.

    As far as lumping you with the ACLU, left-wing extremists, the Weather Underground, and the Black Liberation Army, I’m not sure how mentioning these groups implies that I think you are in their camp, although I’d disagree with your self-description of “moderate liberal.” You wrote first of the need to deal with mental illness. The ACLU figures prominently in that debate. You mentioned right-wing extremists and I balanced your post with examples of left-wing extremists. If, for example, I were to write that the only presidents to have been impeached were Democrats, I would expect you to point out that, although correct, only Nixon’s resignation prevented a Republican from joining the list. I would not take that to mean that you think Nixon is my hero.

    As far as whether I agree with you or not, I made quite clear my position at the end and did it without your many qualifiers. Only one man is responsible for what happened in Tucson. Any discussions of political rhetoric having anything at all to do with Tucson are a waste of time. No one died in Tucson because Coulter or Limbaugh or Maher or Obama said mean things to each other.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now Hannah: You have a dilemma that your dad doesn’t share, because you acknowledge that there is a right to own guns in this country, although you seem to have a magic number in mind for how many bullets a gun should be able to hold at any one time. But having acknowledged the right, you must accept that with that right comes risk, risk that a crazy person may get his hands on this gun. Now before we move on, surely you recognize the silliness of saying “assault weapon.” All guns are designed to assault and all guns are specifically designed to kill people. That’s why they call them guns, from the Latin word meaning, “Did that hurt?” “Semi-automatic” means only that the pistol’s slide cocks the hammer allowing for an easier trigger pull after the first shot. A revolver and a semi-auto can be fired just as fast. And they are not “killing-machines,” they will not awake at night and sneak up on you while you sleep and they will not put you in a murderous trance anymore than your iron will make you press your pants. In fact, most guns save lives simply by existing, without the need to be fired. For example, in states where anyone can be carrying a gun, the criminal turns to crimes that reduce his need to confront people, so he reduces his chance of being killed by a grandmother who objects to having her purse stolen and this in turn reduces grandma’s chance of being killed. In this case, the gun doesn’t even have to exist; its possibility of existing is enough to save lives. In states where there are strict laws against honest citizens (but not bad guys) carrying guns, there is no disincentive protecting grandma from assault. A perfect example of how the presence of guns saves lives is the riots after the verdicts in the trial of the police officers who arrested Rodney King. Korean businesses were specifically targeted for looting and burning. But the ones that survived had armed owners, some brandishing “assault weapons.” Had they just been armed with handguns there is little doubt that some “original gangsters” would have challenged them, but seeing an AK-47 pointed at them made the looters search for easier targets.

    You mention my daughter and I’ll address that. I’d rather we lived in a state like Arizona (without the heat, of course), because she would be safer than in New Jersey, where a predator knows she is likely unarmed. I have already taught my daughter how to shoot and when she is alone at home she knows she does not have to rely only on a barking dog (excellent idea, by the way, but does dad have a barking dog for when you are there?), or an alarm system; that in those minutes before the police show up she has one more card to play and it is not the card of begging for mercy. Additionally, when she becomes of age, if she chooses, she has my blessing and support to carry a gun (maybe one of those cute little Lady Smiths with only five rounds – one less than even you think is necessary). Now, do I want her walking the streets with armed bad guys? Of course not. Those people should be in jail and not getting out. Recidivism is the reason we have the crime rate we do. When first-time offenders are dealt with harshly and repeat offenders are jailed for life, crime plummets. Your dad wrote a very good post illustrating what happens when the criminal justice system is run along liberal philosophies: people die. He put in jail a killer that should have already been in jail and that killer will one day be free to kill again. There is no excuse for that. And when he does kill again, liberals will bemoan his access to guns (or machetes if guns suddenly disappeared) instead of being outraged that he was ever released.

    (continued. . .)

    ReplyDelete
  14. You ask some tough questions at the end, but the same could be asked of innocent people who died needlessly because of strict gun-control laws. I asked just such a question of your dad in his “Guns and Violence: An American Problem” post. The more important question is why the Tucson authorities did not act more aggressively during the numerous encounters they had with this loon. You blame a businessman selling a legal product to a man with no documented history of crime or mental illness, instead of faulting those who knew this demented freak. The sad truth is that if Loughner had no access to guns (as likely as nuclear weapons disappearing), he would have instead, rented a huge SUV and ran over the line of people killing many more, with little fear that he could be over-powered and stopped as happened on that fateful day or he would have loaded up his car with fertilizer, following simple directions available on the Internet and killed tens or hundreds of people in the subsequent explosion, or he would have made grenades out of plumbing pipe and thrown them from a window sending shrapnel through the large crowd, or from that same window he could have used a hunting rifle and scope and picked off many from the safety of a locked room, or. . .

    You see the problem is not guns; it is how we deal with bad people. Your anger is directed at a tool and not at those people who left the Tucson tragedy unfold through their inaction.

    Inheriting an irrational fear of guns is fine; misdiagnosing the problem is not. The result is wasted money and lives lost. As the NRA notes (with footnotes if you doubt the accuracy), “Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.” Common sense explains why: Laws only apply to the law abiding.

    Before you let your young mind set like concrete around an idea, explore all the information available; don’t be afraid to alter and change your beliefs. A while back I read a college paper that I wrote over 25 years ago. In it I advocated gun control and it read much like your post. Ironically, I wrote that at a time when I had little chance of coming into contact with the wrong end of a gun. As my chances have increased, I have changed my position 180 degrees. Back then, my interest in history and the founding of this country was practically non-existent. Time has corrected that and with knowledge comes a re-evaluation of beliefs. Maybe I’ll change direction again, but only if facts dictate it and that’s the key: clarify in your own head what you believe, make sure the facts support it, and never let the concrete set completely.

    Rich R.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rich,

    I got a good laugh at the suggestion that you bring balance to my essays. So thanks for that.

    I was indeed discussing the last two years when I said the “majority” of violent rhetoric has come from the right (I said “of late” in the original essay; perhaps less clear than I should have been, but I was referring to the period since Obama became President). You cited some examples of irresponsible and outrageous statements from the left which, while fair enough, does not really prove that the barbs have been relatively even-handed during this time frame(one quibble: the Daily Kos remark really doesn’t count, as “your dead to me” is a fairly conventional, non-violent English expression that means “You no longer mean anything to me”, not “I want you dead”).

    I should not need to cite example after example of violent and inciteful rhetoric and imagery used by the right since Obama became president to demonstrate that things have not been balanced on this score. I am not talking about rude comments, or politically-charged comments (these do indeed come from both sides of the aisle in relatively even proportions). I am talking about truly inciteful, potentially or implicitly violent, armed-revolution type comments. If you have watched the news these past two years (other than Fox perhaps), you really would not dispute from which direction most of the vitriol has come. Those examples were seen by me and millions of Americans virtually every night during the town hall meetings and Tea Party rallies, prompted by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and many others (Limbaugh: comparing Nancy Pelosi to Hitler and suggesting that the people showing up at town hall meetings are protesting “a Hitler-like policy that’s being heralded with a Hitler-like logo” (this is one of his milder statements). Beck: jokes of poisoning Nancy Pelosi; says that when the government tries to take away his child for refusing to submit to a mandatory flu shot, it will first have to contend with “Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.” Michele Bachmann: I want people in Minnesota “armed and dangerous on this issue … ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing’ . . . we the people are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.” Congressional districts targeted by cross-hairs, Second Amendment remedies, violent and hateful signs at Tea Party rallies. The examples go on and on and on.

    Or just look at the congressional race in Rep. Giffords’ district. As reported in the Washington Post on Monday, interviews with more than two dozen state political leaders and residents confirmed that “pitched emotions, centered on issues of immigration, health care and the economy, have fuled an atmosphere that encourages vitriol” and “anti-Washington sentiment.” In August 2009, a protestor brought a gun to one of Gifford’s “Congress on Your Corner” events. The man shouted disparaging remarks at Giffords and drew the attention of the police after he dropped his gun. After Gifford’s opponent, Jesse Kelly, won the Republican primary, he held a gun-shooting fundraiser. A promotional ad said, “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.” Another Arizona Democrat, Rep. Raul Grijalva and his staff, in April received multiple death threats and had to temporarily shut his district offices in Tucson and Yuma. Giffords’ congressional office in Tucson was also vandalized, the glass shattered after an apparent BB-gun had been fired through the window.

    (cont’d)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rich (cont'd):

    Perhaps if we scanned the airwaves and protests when Bush was president, we would see the balance skewed in the other direction. Certainly, those who suggested that Bush had plotted 9/11 or who compared Bush to Hitler are no better than those who compare Obama to Hitler or who question the legitimacy of his citizenship, or claim he plans to take away your guns and set up death panels.

    Nevertheless, you and I agree that the heightened political rhetoric of the past two years did not cause the tragedy in Tucson. But we part ways on the need to tone things down. On this, I commend your fellow Republican (an old-style, moderate conservative), Joe Scarborough, who said recently on Morning Joe: “[B]efore you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath. Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don’t connect in this case doesn’t mean you can afford to ignore the possibility – or, as many fear, the inevitability – that someone else will soon draw the line between them.”

    Examples abound. In July 2010, Bryon Williams was arrested after a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers, who thwarted his attempt to assassinate employees at the Tides Foundation (a low profile, non-profit organization that funds liberal causes). In a police affidavit, Williams admitted to the plot and said he was inspired by things he learned from Glenn Beck on Fox News. Why the Tides Foundation? As it happens, Beck had verbally attacked Tides 29 times on his Fox News show in the year-and-a-half leading up to the shooting.

    In May 2009, a Kansas man named Scott Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller (while Tiller was attending his Lutheran Church on a Sunday morning), after Bill O’Reilly had obsessively covered Tiller’s abortion practice (a legally licensed, authorized and constitutionally protected medical clinic). E.g., O’Reilly: “In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed.” As a result, Tiller’s clinic was picketed and vandalized. Not long after, some fanatic with a gun walked into church and shot Tiller in the head.

    In April 2009, Richard Poplawski of Pittsburgh, who “feared the Obama gun ban that’s on the way,” ambushed and killed three police officers who had been called to his house.

    Now, let me be clear. I do not blame Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or Fox News for what happened in these incidents. And I can understand you becoming upset over the suggestion that these commentators are to blame for these or any other violent incident committed by nutbags. But the fact that these incidents occurred, and that there are people nuts enought to commit them, are reminders that we need to have a broader conversation about the relationship between political culture and political violence, and about the excesses of our current climate. I had hoped you would agree with me on this point.

    (cont’d)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rich (cont'd):

    Now, as for your suggestion that guns make us more safe and gun control laws make us less safe: An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun. “Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,” the researchers said, “the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.”

    That more than 1,000,000 people in the United States have died from guns (murders, accidents, and suicides) since 1968 suggests that having more guns per capita than any other country on earth may not be the answer. I do not know what more compelling fact could convince you of this.

    According to a recent report by the Violence Policy Center, based on an analysis of 2007 national data (the most recently available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control, the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate in 2007 far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.34 per 100,000. The common denominator? Lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership (e.g., Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York) had the lowest rates of firearm-related death.

    According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher. Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States.

    Finally, according to a study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine (Wiebe, Douglas J., “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82), an estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present. I am certain you have your own studies to cite, but please don’t suggest that my position on gun control is due to an “irrational fear of guns” or that you are the only one with facts to support your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark, I have read your post; Rich's response; and your daughter's post. I would like to ask you a simple question just so i am crystal clear on your position If you had the unlimited power to do so, what would you do about the second amendment? Would you completely repeal the amendment? If you were to rewrite the amendment how would you write it? Amendments are pretty short so I would love to get the version you would write. Regards, Bill

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bill,

    Given the history of gun ownership in the United States and the strong feelings of many Americans concerning the right to own a gun, I do not believe I would favor total repeal of the Second Amendment (despite my personal feelings about guns). However, I would re-write the Amendment consistent with what I believe was its actual intent; something along these lines: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except that Congress shall have the power to enact reasonable restrictions and regulations governing the safety and welfare of its citizens." If it were up to me, I would sever this provision from the discussion concerning "a well regulated militia" (because to this day, I have no idea what they were talking about).

    The exact language might be tinkered with (I am working off the cuff here), but the Amendment would encompass the idea that, while law abiding, mentally stable, U.S. citizens are entitled to own a gun (assuming they can prove that they know how to safely handle a gun -- similar to having to prove that you can safely and competently handle a car and know the rules of the road before you can obtain a driver's license), the legislature may impose reasonable restrictions and regulations over gun ownership (e.g., no AK-47's, machine guns or assault weapons; no cop-killing bullets; etc.). What restrictions would be imposed would be subject to the democratic process, and the reasonableness of the restrictions would be determined in the final analysis by the courts. But if Congress passed a law restricting the number of guns that could be purchased at one time, or in one month (to prevent straw purchases), or a law that banned certain types of highly lethal assault weapons, there would be little dispute concerning its constitutionality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What’s the Difference Between a Conservative and a Liberal?

    -By Warner Todd Huston

    People often wonder what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal. The simple fact of the matter is that the major difference is that conservatives wonder first what it is they are responsible for while liberals wonder first what everyone else should be doing for them.

    Here are some brief rules of thumb:

    If a conservative sees a U.S. flag, his heart swells with pride.
    If a liberal sees a U.S. flag, he feels shame.


    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy them.
    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one else should have one either.


    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he won’t eat meat.
    If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.


    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat it.
    If a liberal see an enemy he wonders what he can do to appease him.


    If a conservative is homosexual, he’ll quietly enjoy his life.
    If a liberal is homosexual, he’ll demand everyone get involved in his bedroom activities.


    If a successful conservative is black or Hispanic, he’ll see himself as having succeeded on his own merits.
    Successful liberal minorities still claim “racism” and want government to give them even more.


    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to work to better his situation.
    A liberal wants someone else to take care of him.


    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    If a liberal doesn’t like a radio show, he demands that the station be shut down or censored.


    If a conservative is a non-believer, he just doesn’t go to church.
    Non-believing liberals demand that everyone cease believing and demands churches be censored.


    If a conservative needs health care, he shops for it, or chooses a job that provides it.
    Liberals demand that everyone else provide him with healthcare for free.


    If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
    If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.


    Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.
    Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.


    Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.

    Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do you know why the first ammendment still exists?
    Because we still have the 2nd.

    ReplyDelete