I am sick of the B.S. being pumped out by the corporate media about the source of political vitriol in the U.S. The false equivalency (both sides do it) is unhelpful and actually inaccurate. I have seen some good writing on various blogs and in some newspapers about this point. I will underscore some of the best takes that I have seen below.
I agree 100% with these words from a New York Times editorial published today:
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.
From James Fallows:
So the train of logic is:
- anything that can be called an "assassination" is inherently political;
- very often the "politics" are obscure, personal, or reflecting mental disorders rather than "normal" political disagreements. But now a further step,
- the political tone of an era can have some bearing on violent events. The Jonestown/Ryan and Fromme/Ford shootings had no detectable source in deeper political disagreements of that era. But the anti-JFK hate-rhetoric in Dallas before his visit was so intense that for decades people debated whether the city was somehow "responsible" for the killing. (Even given that Lee Harvey Oswald was an outlier in all ways.)
That's the further political ramification here. We don't know why the Tucson killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never "understand." But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."
From E.J Dionne:
Let's begin by being honest. It is not partisan to observe that there are cycles to violent rhetoric in our politics. In the late 1960s, violent talk (and sometimes violence itself) was more common on the far left. But since President Obama's election, it is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing "tyranny."
It is Obama's opponents who carried guns to his speeches and cited Jefferson's line that the tree of liberty "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The point is not to "blame" American conservatism for the actions of a possibly deranged man, especially since the views of Jared Lee Loughner seem so thoroughly confused. But we must now insist with more force than ever that threats of violence no less than violence itself are antithetical to democracy. Violent talk and playacting cannot be part of our political routine. It is not cute or amusing to put crosshairs over a congressional district.
Liberals were rightly pressed in the 1960s to condemn violence on the left. Now, conservative leaders must take on their fringe when it uses language that intimates threats of bloodshed. That means more than just highly general statements praising civility.
From Andrew Sullivan
But the level of animus toward the new president and anyone supporting him reached preposterous proportions at the beginning of this presidency; the gracelessness from the Congressional leadership on down, from "You lie!" to "death panels" and "palling around with terrorists" ... this is a real problem in a country with its fair share of disturbed individuals and much more than its fair share of guns.
The Palin forces, who have fomented this dynamic more viciously and recklessly than any other group, are reacting today with incandescent rage that they could even be mentioned in the same breath as this act of political terrorism. That's called denial. When you put a politician in literal cross-hairs, when you call her a target, when you celebrate how many targets you have hit, when you go on national television and shoot guns, when you use the language of "lock and load" to describe disagreements over healthcare provision ... you are part of the problem.
What we need now is a presidential speech that can affirm the positive aspects of robust debate while drawing a line under the nihilist elements of personal and ideological hatred. But it is clear to me at least that if American politics is to regain its composure, the forces of Palin and what she represents must be defeated. Not appeased or excused for, but defeated in the derelict public square of what's left of our common discourse.
From PM Carpenter
Self-acquittal, self-exoneration, a kind of pretend self-unawareness, as well as the highest of indignation and high dudgeon are in high gear. Republican Congressman Peter King says "It’s a horrible tragedy. From what we know it’s a deranged person, and I think any other discussion at this time ... politicize[s] it." Sarah Palin's private Ministry of Truth declares, from under the protective rock of Twitter, naturally: "Politicizing this is repulsive." And another House Republican, a real propagandistic trooper, announces that "From what I can tell on the web this guy looks liberal. He’s definitely crazy."
Politico reports that "On talk radio, other conservatives did the same, emphasizing that Loughner seemed far-left."
No honor, no decency, no self-examination, no seizing this extraordinary opportunity to stop, think, and perhaps confess: You know what? -- Maybe, in our zeal, we went a trifle too far, and maybe, just maybe, we should rein in the rhetoric; sure, this young man is psychotic, but for us his acts are a question of proximate cause and our undeniable culpability.
Republican abettors should want to come clean; they should want to politicize what is so conspicuously a political, inexorable tragedy of far-right instigation. They should want to say, post-Bay Kennedylike, We accept our responsibiity in this madness and it's time to start fresh.
Which some Republicans are indeed confessing -- in anonymity. "There is a need for some reflection here - what is too far now?" said a "senior" Republican senator to Politico. "What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other."
Well, senator, then why don't you "outdo" your Republican colleagues. You can start by going on the record, by courageously standing before a camera and yelling Stop! Stop the madness. All of you, especially those of you over here, on my increasingly sick side.
From Steve Benen
As the political world continues to monitor developments in Tucson, there have been some interesting responses from the right, beyond the condolences and well wishes.
There's a contingent that seems intent on trying to somehow characterize Jared Lee Loughner as some sort of liberal, as part of a he's-not-on-my-team instinct. There's a larger group that seems defensive about the very idea of associating rhetorical excesses on the right with political violence. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was asked this morning by CNN's Candy Crowley about Sarah Palin's notorious "crosshairs" graphic, and he seemed rather annoyed about the question. Alexander concluded, "I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it."
But I noticed one Republican senator who took a more constructive line with Politico.
Others acknowledged what they called an unavoidable reality -- flamboyant or incendiary anti-government rhetoric of the sort used by many conservative politicians, commentators and tea party activists for the time being will carry a stigma.
A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a "cautionary tale" by Republicans.
"There is a need for some reflection here -- what is too far now?" said the senator. "What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There's been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody's trying to outdo each other."
The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned.
"They're talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt," the Republican said, before adding that politicians of all stripes need to emphasize in the coming days that "tone matters."
"And the Republican Party in particular needs to reinforce that," the senator said.
That seems like a fairly sensible approach.
But let's not lose sight of the context -- in the 21st century, a Republican senator who wants to convey a basic observation about rhetorical excesses, has to do so anonymously. We've reached the point at which a GOP senator wants to say that "tone matters," but can't quite bring himself/herself to say so on the record.
That, it seems to me, is about as significant as the sentiment itself.
"There is a need for some reflection here." Here's hoping the senator's wish comes true.
From Paul Krugman:
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.
From