What lessons can we learn from the Arizona tragedy?

Photo courtesy of here.

The tragic event in AZ may or may not have been politically motivated, but we as a nation should use this moment to reflect on where the violent political rhetoric we’ve seen in recent years has lead. And we should ask ourselves why we have such a violent society and what we can do to reduce that violence.


There has been a lot of discussion about the recent senseless act of violence and what lessons can be drawn from it. Some have blamed the extreme rhetoric that we’ve seen from the political right, especially the Tea Party Republicans on the threats against a number of Democratic Congressman.

Those on the right counter by saying there is extremism on both sides, but I think that is definitely a false equivalency. Instead of making false equivalencies between right and left extremists, people on both sides-especially the right-should make it a point to tone down the rhetoric and denounce any violent rhetoric. This is something local leaders on the right have refused to do.

And I would like to know who on the left has used violent rhetoric since people are repeating that it’s happening on both sides. I haven’t seen it and I follow the news pretty closely.

The closest thing I’ve seen was conservative Democrat Joe Manchin’s commercial where he shoots the Cap and Trade bill. Though he is clearly not a liberal, I have no problem denouncing that ad. Why can’t conservatives do the same thing?

I think this article at Salon makes a great point by stating that perhaps we shouldn’t try to read too much into the delusions of someone that appears to be insane and may not have a discernable political ideology.

Loughner is almost certainly insane and, like the countless other mentally disturbed people who send similar ravings to media outlets around the world, his ideas would have been ignored as incoherent and irrelevant if he hadn't fired a gun into a crowd of people Saturday. The fact that he did fire that gun, however, doesn't make his delusions suddenly meaningful. It doesn't make his list of favorite books significant. Crazy people who make headlines and change history are still crazy.

This view that his list of books don’t seem to mean anything is supported by this excerpt from this article,

The postings suggest Loughner is "a person who doesn't have a very concrete ideology," said Frederic L. Solop, chair of the Department of Politics and International Affairs at Northern Arizona University. "I don't see any reflection of a political party or a specific set of ideas."

According to the article,

Steven Cates, who attended an advanced poetry writing class with Loughner at Pima Community College last spring, said he didn't recall Loughner talking about politics. "He didn't seem very interested in politics. Whatever politics were brought up in class, he seemed to tune it out," Cates said.

And,

One of the high school friends who spoke on condition of anonymity paused when asked if he considered Loughner a Republican or Democrat.
"Is there a radical party? It went beyond that, it wasn't left or right," the friend said.

While we don’t know for sure if this violence was politically motivated we do know that if it were it wouldn’t be surprising given the fact that Gabriel Giiffords and other Democrats had already been threatened. And we need to discuss why that is.

Unfortunately there are many people with mental issues that go untreated which are susceptible to violent vitriol. And there are many leaders on the right that have been using inflammatory and violent rhetoric. And some of them are getting paid a lot of money for it.

This article by Joan Walsh makes a good point.

Sadly, to my knowledge, no conservative leader has yet called for dialing back the rage on the right in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Sarah Palin sent condolences to Giffords' family, but said nothing about her unconscionable SarahPAC map putting 20 House members, including Giffords, in actual crosshairs for supporting healthcare reform, or her infamous Tweet telling conservatives "don't retreat, reload." Giffords' 2010 Tea Party challenger, Jesse Kelly, hasn't apologized for inviting supporters to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target for victory" and "remove Gabrielle Giffords from office." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle hasn't yet recanted her statement about the need to pursue "Second Amendment remedies" if political change lags behind the Tea Party's dreams.

Although there's no evidence Tea Party rhetoric had anything to do with Giffords' shooting, it can be no surprise that her father, when asked if his daughter had enemies, told the New York Post tearfully, "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."

Though Gifford is courageous, she and many others did have reason to be concerned about their security. As this article notes,

Her 2010 vote in favor of healthcare reform only further angered conservatives in the district. After the passage of the reform bill, she became the target of political vandals, who smashed a glass door at her Tucson office. And Giffords was among the representatives listed on a controversial target map released by Sarah Palin's PAC that featured crosshairs over the districts of pro-health reform members.

Unsurprisingly, given that the 8th is a border district, immigration also played a central role in Giffords' 2010 reelection campaign against Tea Party favorite and Palin endorsee Jesse Kelly. Giffords often blamed the federal government for failing to "secure the border," but she also opposed S.B. 1070, the harsh Arizona immigration law that has been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on civil rights. Kelly targeted her criticism of that law in a campaign attack ad.

(There is also new attention being paid today to a Web ad for a Kelly campaign event in June promoted as "Get on Target for Victory in November/Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office/Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kell." It's important to note, though, that nothing is known at this point about the motive for the shooting.)

Giffords isn’t the only Democrat that has been targeted and threatened. There’s a long list of others.

Democracy Now! reports that Gifford has spoken out about Sarah Palin’s cross hairs targeting her. And she feared for her life before this assassination attempt.

In March, Giffords appeared on MSNBC after the healthcare vote and spoke about the threats against her.

REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS: We have had hundreds and hundreds of protesters over the course of the last several months. Our office corner has really become an area where the Tea Party movement congregates. And the rhetoric is incredibly heated—not just the calls, but the emails, the slurs. So, I mean, things have really gotten spun up. And, I mean, you’ve got to think about it. Our democracy is a light—a beacon, really—around the world, because we effect change at the ballot box and not because of these, you know, outbursts of violence, in certain cases, and the yelling and the—you know, it’s just—you know, change is important. It’s a part of our process. But it’s really important that we focus on the fact that we have a democratic process.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Do you think Republican members of the House, the Republican leadership, should have spoken out more forcefully to denounce this violence? Or are you satisfied with what they’ve said? For example, the Minority Leader, John Boehner, was on Fox News denouncing violence.

REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS: I think it’s important for all leaders, not just leaders of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party—there are certainly a lot of independents out there, that [inaudible] even will not resonate towards—but community leaders, figures in our community, to say, "Look, we can’t stand for this." I mean, this is a situation where people don’t—I mean, really we need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things—for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.

These are facts that we can be sure of. And that is what we need to discuss regardless of whether the deranged gunman was motivated by political ads or violent rhetoric he most likely saw or not. Obviously all the people that have been speaking out about this inflammatory rhetoric aren't just being paranoid, dramatic or trying to score political points. This issue is very serious and may be deadly.