Saturday’s shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Tuscon, Arizona, shocked the nation.
It seemed within minutes of the incident fingers to started to get pointed.
The tragedy quickly turned into a left-versus-right, who-is-responsible-for-all-this, blame-the-other-guy discussion.
This blogger feels, probably naively, the discussion should have first been one of reverence and thoughtfulness.
Only later, when the time is right, should the thorny issues of gun violence, security of public officials, and American political culture be addressed.
To be fair, this event was hard to comprehend. Even Jon Stewart, whom ForeverPlaid looks to for the right things to say all too often, admitted on his show last night (video here) that he didn’t know how to respond to the tragedy. He did say some necessarily sincere things, which should be appreciated:
If there is any solace in this, I think it’s that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that’s become a part of the political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven’t lost our capacity to be horrified.
In relation to the “rhetoric” that Stewart described, in the past few days, there has been a lot of talk about how Sarah Palin’s “cross hairs” map, which came out last spring to single out Democrats in traditional GOP districts to be “targeted” for their votes for health care reform.
It’s also been well-reported that Congresswoman Giffords herself commented on how the heated rhetoric and imagery like this can be consequential.
Yet, it’s difficult already to know if or how the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner, in particular was affected by gun-related graphics and language like Palin’s and others’. At the same time, mixing guns and political communication shouldn’t be tolerated because of what it stands for implicitly.
H/T TPM
On the other hand, Nick Gillespie wrote for the Reason blog that:
The problem isn’t with the current moment’s rhetoric, it’s with the … politicization of every … thing not even for a higher purpose or broader fight but for the cheapest moment-by-moment partisan advantage. Whether on the left or on the right, there’s a totalist mentality that everything can and should be explained first and foremost as to whether it helps or hurt the party of choice.
Perhaps it’s difficult not to be a political reactionary or opportunist when violence that is so politically-tinged occurs.
Still, these questions are raised: Can the blame rest solely on the shoulders of an allegedly mentally unstable gunman? Or is there a greater problem with political culture or violence culture in America?
Should such a tragedy be fodder for political posturing?
Update: CBS has released a poll of 673 American adults that indicates:
]]>Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
