Shut Up, He Explained

I wasn't planning to write anything about the massacre in Arizona.  It's horrible and there's not much more you can say.  Unfortunately, and all too predictably, a lot of people are trying to exploit the event politically.

A bunch of pundits have decided to not let this crisis go to waste, and are using the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords to attack the right for using heated rhetoric.

First, of course, we don't even know why the killer attacked.  The pundits should at least wait until we have some idea before they start discussing what's behind it.

Second, the shooter is pretty clearly unhinged, and even if he left behind a note saying "I did this solely based on what I learned by listening to Rush Limbaugh," it would still be the shooter's fault, and no one else's.  Rush (or whoever people are trying to blame) does not, as far as I know, support assassination. (There are groups who openly, even proudly, support violence, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here--it's a discussion about strong language.) It's easy to misuse any rhetoric as cover for action, but the responsibility lies with the actor.

Finally, these pundits seem to be saying the right is going too far, but not the left.  Is this the same left that regularly called Bush a war criminal, and compared him to Hitler?  The same left that as a matter of course compares its political opponents to racists, sexists, fascists--indeed, a whole laundry list of epithets including Nazi?  Yet these pundits look the other way or excuse the same rhetoric from their own side, or worse, partake in it.

It's quite a sight to see Keith Olberman, who's responsible for as much intemperate commentary as anyone else these past few years, condemn how ugly rhetoric has gotten.

Then there's Andrew Sullivan, who couldn't wait to take advantage of the shooting.  In fact, he's even attacked those who say leftist pundits are being unfair.

First he quotes Stanley Kurtz on Sarah Palin:

One of the first to be dragged into this sickening ritual of guilt by association: Sarah Palin...

Here we go again in Arizona, as people with political agendas unleash their attacks even before the victims of this senseless shooting have been buried. I find it depressing beyond belief.

This isn't about a nearly year-old Sarah Palin map; it's about a lone nutjob who doesn't value human life. It would be nice if we briefly put aside partisan differences and came together with sympathy and support for Gabby Giffords and the other victims, rather than opening rhetorical fire ourselves.

Here's Sullivan's response.  I had to look it over more than once to convince myself he actually wrote what I thought I read.

I have yet to read or hear anyone who has both decried the violent rhetoric of the Palinite right and who doesn't also feel sympathy for the victims of this mass murder - so one of Kurtz's straw men disintegrates upon even momentary reflection.

Pardon me?  Kurtz isn't saying that those who decry Palin's rhetoric don't care about the victims of the murder.  Indeed, they have no argument if they don't care about what happened.  Kurtz is just saying that they shouldn't cheapen the one thing everyone agrees on--that these are horrible killings--to score political points.  Sullivan's straw man is a straw man.

Sullivan continues:

But here's the important point: when public officials are gunned down in public, it is deeply relevant to figure out why, and to ask questions and seek answers immediately. [Why immediately?] Those questions and answers will inevitably involve politics. [Really?] To describe this process as "sickening" is a bizarre view for a journalist.

What Stanley Kurtz finds sickening is not an attempt to get to the bottom of the murders, but people using the murders as an excuse to attack their political opponents.  There is always strong political rhetoric out there.  Suggesting it's responsible for a lone nut killing people is a dangerous road to go down, and I would think someone like Sullivan, who writes about his opponents in harsh language, would have enough self-awareness to be extremely wary of such an attempt.  In fact, I'd think, after seeing this process of easy exploitation of tragic events repeated over and over, he'd feel a little sick about it himself.

And then there's the second straw man. No one is saying Sarah Palin should be viewed as an accomplice to murder. Many are merely saying that her recklessly violent and inflammatory rhetoric has poisoned the discourse and has long run the risk of empowering the deranged. We are saying it's about time someone took responsibility for this kind of rhetorical extremism, because it can and has led to violence and murder.

Wow.  I don't think I could outdo this if I tried to write a parody.  First, as far as I can see, no one is saying the left claims Palin is a legally responsible for the murders.  They use "accomplice" (or whatever words they use--Stanley Kurtz uses "guilt by association") to refer to people making the unsupported claim that general political rhetoric like Palin's can and has led to violence and murder.  And sure enough, by the end of the paragraph, that's just what Sullivan is claiming.

But all the hypocritical pundits aren't as troublesome as officials who see this sort of thing as an excuse to act.

Listen to what Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had to say:

I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what (we) see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in. And I think it's time that we do the soul-searching.

Yes, we all remember those wonderful days before talk radio, when JFK was shot, Malcolm X was shot, Martin Luther King, Jr was shot, RFK was shot, George Wallace was shot, Gerald Ford was shot at twice, Reagan was shot, etc., etc.

The Sheriff later added:

To try to inflame the public on a daily basis 24 hours a day, seven days a week has impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with.

A lot of people hold this theory.  That inflammatory rhetoric pushes everyone a bit toward the extreme, and those already on the edge go over.  Seems to me the deranged have always been quite capable of being deranged without any help, and can generally find an excuse somewhere--whether it's the Bible, Catcher In The Rye, or just the voices in their head--to justify their actions.

The Sheriff's words get a big thumbs up from some people in Congress.  Here's a positive review from Representative James Clyburn:

The sheriff out there in Tucson, I think he's got it right. Words do have consequences. And I think that we have to really -- this is nothing new. I've been saying this for a long time now.

Have to really...what?

Then there's Representative Sten Hoyer, who's a veritable greatest hits of worries:

I think the sheriff was right. Bob, when you and I grew up, we grew up listening to essentially three major news outlets: NBC, ABC, and of course, CBS. We listened to people like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, and Huntley-Brinkley, and they saw their job as to inform us of the facts and we would make a conclusion. Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting, and inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral. And I think that is a context in which somebody who is mentally unbalanced can somehow feel justified in taking this kind of action. And I think we need to all take cognizance of that and be aware that what we say can, in fact, have consequences.

Let's return to the glorious days of yesteryear, when a handful of middle-aged white guys in New York decided what was important.  Imagine, people without journalism degrees actually try to incite people to oppose politicians.

Then, of course, you've got Representative Bob Brady, who's  "introducing legislation making it a federal crime to threaten or incite violence against a member of Congress or a federal official."

Just what does he mean by "threaten or incite"? How will this go beyond the laws we already have on the books?  Guess we all better watch what we say.

Hey, if everyone calmed down, fine by me. Not because I think it'll cut down on assassinations, but because it would mean we could more calmly discuss our disagreements.  But people aren't like that.  That's because when you talk, you're stupid, extreme, evil and dangerous.  When I talk, I'm reasonable, and if it sounds too harsh to you, that's because you don't get it, and the only thing I can do is talk louder.