Like just about every other issue nowadays, the Loughner shooting has reached a point where the media has set up two "sides" for everyone. One side has been calling out the various insanity coming out of the tea party, which casts Democrats as literal enemies to be targeted and destroyed, by voting or second amendment remedies. The other side has mounted a defense of this rhetoric, blaming everything from pot to heavy metal to anarchism to (despicably) progressives themselves.
In my, admittedly very amateur, opinion, Jared Lee Loughner was probably mentally ill, and the idea he had a coherent motive for his actions is a bit implausible. Nor does it even seem he was connected to the tea party "movement" at all. So let's not start making motives that aren't there.
But the fact Jared Loughner wasn't directly influenced by Sarah Palin's target poster or Glenn Beck's conspiracy-board or whatever-else doesn't mean this stuff isn't irresponsible, isn't dangerous, and hasn't already caused real human violence.
If I seem a bit rambling, it's because both the tragic Giffords story and the reporting of the story itself have given me a lot of thoughts, and they don't quite seem to add up to any "side" in the debate.
To the first point, there seemed to be a natural tendency from the start of this tragedy to ascribe this shooting to Giffords' district, where she was a major target of tea party attacks. This really wasn't a bad guess.
Giffords' 2010 challenger, Jesse Kelly, is a pretty standard Tea Party challenger. By which I mean he's crazy, beat a slightly less crazy Republican establishment pick for not being TRUE CONSERVATIVE (and after a Palin endorsement, and regularly engages in exactly the kind of rhetoric that's in question now. This type of disgusting had concrete effects in the past, as Giffords' office had previously been vandalized in the health care bill hysteria.
So it's not much of a surprise that Giffords' father would say this:
Her father Spencer Giffords, 75, wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
"Yeah," he told The New York Post. "The whole tea party."
Or that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who I'm sure has gotten some gray hairs dealing with these people before, would say this while giving a general condemnation of the political tone:
When asked by a reporter if Giffords being shot could have been motivated by "prejudice and bigotry," Dupnik responded, "All I can tell you is that there's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol."
Neither of them are wrong in their individual points. But, as more info comes in about Jared Lee Loughner, what we see is less of a tea party conservative and more of a mentally unbalanced individual who's motivations are hard to discern, at best. His YouTube videos (mirror) are basically incoherent. His previous interactions with Giffords follow that pattern:
That interest might have triggered Mr. Loughner's first meeting with Ms. Giffords in 2007. Mr. Loughner said he asked the lawmaker, "How do you know words mean anything?" recalled Mr. Montanaro. He said Mr. Loughner was "aggravated" when Ms. Giffords, after pausing for a couple of seconds, "responded to him in Spanish and moved on with the meeting."
The most that can be gleamed in terms of political ideology is some incoherent paranoia about the currency and a general distrust of government in general. There's also a flag burning video. This adds up to just about nothing.
It's entirely possible that Loughner will come out and explain his political motivations, or that new evidence could come to light (there's also some link to a conservative rag which, as of now, doesn't have a whole lot of evidence backing it). But I think until more information is known, it's a bit of a jump to place Loughner as a teabagger gone mad, or even a politically active mind at all. It's true that the mental illness in and of itself isn't exactly an explanation for shooting someone, but we need to resist the urge to insert political motivations where they shouldn't be.
The story might've ended there, but the comments from the father and sheriff (among many others), the violence previously committed against Giffords, the right-leaning nature of the district and the toxic political environment in this country has led to an examination of the tea party's political speech and its effects. And this leads to a question: if Jared Lee Loughner hasn't been shown to be a tea party member, and his motivations are unclear at best, why are we even having the debate?
The question isn't whether or not the Gabrielle Giffords shooting should raise questions about the nature of tea party rhetoric. The question is why wasn't this a major issue months (even years) ago?
It's too easy to find links to tea party politicians calling for "reloading", "targeting", "second amendment remedies" or any other violent insinuation. You've probably already thought of another one.
Nor is it too hard to find where this rhetoric has resulted in real violence, an underreported fact so far in this story. Two of the most direct examples are the murder of George Tiller, who Bill O'Reilly deemed "Tiller the Baby Killer", and the Tides Foundation shooter who drew his inspiration from Glenn Beck. There's plenty more cases out there, from assassination attempts to successful acts of violence. These events might've earned a news cycle with some criticism of Beck or O'Reilly, but for the most part they were ignored and tossed aside when a new issue came along. Claims about the dangers of right-wing fearmongering, some of which from Giffords herself, basically got a news segment and were then ignored.
The right-wing reaction to this story has been an interesting process. The justified point that Loughner hasn't been shown to be a conservative nutjob has usually been the starting point. But then we get one of two things:
First is the "BS equivalency" argument. Here's Glenn Beck, talking to Sarah Palin:
"Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are feeling the same heat, if not much more on this. I want you to know you have my support. But please look into protection for your family. An attempt on you could bring the republic down," Beck wrote. "There are nutjobs on all sides...terror is terror. I don't care if it is for Allah or your party."
Second is the "we didn't do it!". This usually involves blaming something else, and implying the Democrats are using this tragedy for political gain. Limbaugh pulls off both on this count, blaming everything except conservatives and then blaming Democrats for having the discussion. David Frum somehow blamed marijuana.
Most of these insinuations are equally or more stupid than the previously mentioned arguments placing Loughner as a teabagger. At this point, we really don't know, and it's silly to guess, what Loughner was thinking. We do know, however, that right-wing rhetoric leads to violence, as seen in other cases.
To summarize: Jared Lee Loughner hasn't been sufficiently shown to be violent conservative nutjob, and we shouldn't toss on insinuations without evidence. The right-wing has engaged in destructive rhetoric which has already caused violence, and should be held accountable to it. The national dialogue about right-wing rhetoric might've been caused by an event that wasn't directly connected, but that isn't an excuse for the rhetoric itself. And the fact we're having a dialogue about it is overdue.
If we're going to have a dialogue, let's keep all the information straight. This is the best way to condemn the Palins and Becks of the world with their own words.