I’m not usually one to get worked up over sad or scary news stories. But I was as disturbed and upset as I can ever remember when I heard about the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Why was I more upset about this than any other similar incident I can think of? There have been deadlier shootings in the US, accidents that have killed dozens, natural disasters, and so on. Why did this affect me so much?
The obvious first reaction from politicians and people of all political views was shock, dismay, and sadness at this horrific crime, which was obviously the work of a mentally unstable individual. But it wasn’t long before partisans of the left and right started lobbing accusations (whether justified or not) at the other side. Many people have called for a re-examination of the harsh rhetoric often used in American politics. Perhaps the most criticized was the map that Sarah Palin’s political action committee had posted in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections; that map targeted vulnerable Democrats with crosshairs on their congressional districts. Now, thankfully we live in a country where the right to free speech is cherished, and people who want to use questionable rhetoric or take shocking stances can do so. But just because we can use such rhetoric, should we? Many people have suggested that harsh political rhetoric, demonization of one’s political opponents, etc. may very well trigger the mentally unstable to commit acts of violence they otherwise would not have committed. Perhaps that’s true. Jack Shafer at Slate, however, takes another approach:
“Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer.”
To a certain extent, I’d agree—after all, the word “hates” is in the title of my blog.** The risk of an insane person being driven to murder by indirect vitriolic political rhetoric is small enough and the consequences of swinging too far in the direction of squelching free speech are great enough that we should continue to defend people’s rights to express their political views, even when they do so in a manner that some or many or most or even almost all of us find distasteful. I should also point out here that we have no idea whether the shooter*** was influenced by any particular politician’s speeches or writings; from what we know his politics were a collection of fringe views, but I doubt we will ever establish any sort of link between a particular phrase he may have heard and the crime he committed. And in any case, it is ridiculous to lay the blame for this crime on anyone other than the person who committed it. Continue reading ‘the arizona shooting and the state of American political discourse’