Recent polls suggest that President Obama would handily defeat the Grizzly Bear mom from Alaska if she were to be the Republican nominee in 2012. Obama fares well in these polls against all comers but Palin appears to be the weakest of his potential opponents. So, her moment in the sun as a serious national candidate was already waning before the shocking shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but the backlash against the over-the-top rhetoric of the ridiculous right may prove to be the tipping point that relegates Palin to the status of former politician without portfolio. To the extent that this shooting incident is seen as a logical and foreseeable consequence of the anger inflamed by Tea Party politics, Palin may be the biggest loser.
Why Palin? Because of the graphic below, which appeared on Palin’s website during the last election. The gun sight cross-hairs over the districts of targeted Democrats, including Representative Giffords, will become the iconic proof of politics gone too far. In the next few days, expect the national conversation to be dominated by blowback against the politics of hate that has been the hallmark of the Tea Party. But, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this graphic provides the eloquent testimony that will be the undoing of Palin, especially when coupled with her irresponsible call, “don’t react, reload.”
At the time this graphic appeared on the Palin website, Representative Giffords’ own response was chilling in light of the shooting.
“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”
Beyond the tragic consequences in Tucson this weekend, one would hope that the long term consequences will be the demise of the politicians who have been too willing to reap political benefit from hate-mongering.
Here is an early sampling of the blowback of which I speak, and this is not some rambling of the liberal media of the east coast. These are the words of the sheriff on the scene and of the Congressman from the adjacent Congressional district in Arizona.
‘When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,’ Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.
‘The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.
‘And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.’
He added: ‘That may be free speech. But it’s not without consequence.’
And here is the report about the statement of Congressman Grijalva:
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who represents a district adjacent to Gabrielle Giffords’s, said that Saturday’s shooting is a consequence of the vitriolic rhetoric that has arisen over the past few years among extreme elements of the Tea Party.
“The climate has gotten so toxic in our political discourse, setting up for this kind of reaction for too long. It’s unfortunate to say that. I hate to say that,” Grijalva said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “If you’re an opponent, you’re a deadly enemy,” Grijalva said of the mindset among Arizona extremists. “Anybody who contributed to feeding this monster had better step back and realize they’re threatening our form of government.”
Grijalva said that Tea Party leader Sarah Palin should reflect on the rhetoric that she has employed. “She — as I mentioned, people contributing to this toxic climate — Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior”.
I think it’s natural for us to want to find someone to blame for this, but having said that, I think we should also be careful to make Ms. Palin out to be the direct causation for this tragedy. Yes, she has spewed hate-filled speech into the public arena. Yes, she has created a chillingly creepy image for her website that was, in hindsight, too close to reality for comfort. But we need to keep in mind that the deranged man (and what looks like his accomplice from new reports) had to already be off his rocker to actually follow through with the highly heated, overly emotional rhetoric that Ms. Palin put out there. I think in this time of mourning, our country shouldn’t be looking to point fingers so much at those people who were not directly involved but to stand behind those most shattered and let them know through our prayers that our hearts go out to them. Let’s not make this horrible event into something that we seek to abuse for political gain or any other kind of posturing. Later, when the dust has settled and the fires of our emotions have burned out into coals of their former selves, we can go to start looking to see who or what led this disaster to happen. I will say, though, that I think the more we find about these events yesterday, the more we learn that Ms. Palin is far from a blameless innocent in the whole mess—even if her involvement was not direct, it may well have had a causative effect.
Mr. Holmen: the same thought occurred to me. That awful ad with the gun-target marks on Arizona and elsewhere is a matter of record and will always follow her. If there is anything redemptive to come from this, it will be that people like Palin and others pull back from their violence-tinged verbiage.
Reckless, incendiary speech has serious consequences, especially when it is uttered in the public square. The line between “free speech” and stupidity is this … go stand in a line at an airport about to go through the scanners, and casually say out loud to anyone nearby, “I hope they don’t find the bomb fixings in my bag! Just kidding!” You may have the right to exercise your “free speech rights” anywhere you please but you will find yourself doing a lot of explaining to TSA and Airport Police as they make sure you miss your flight, and maybe even end up charging you with reckless endangerment of public safety. Not to mention the severely irritated bystanders who will be delayed as you are hauled away out of the line! It is disingenuous for any politician or media outlet to claim “free speech” rights which are thinly veiled hate speech against their opponents. The “just kidding” disclaimer does not absolve anyone from the subsequent murderous actions of mentally ill persons who CANNOT distinguish a stupid joke from a serious command to do grave harm. When a bullseye gun sight is painted on someone, there are bound to be terrible consequences.
My personal push back against such hate speech, from now on no matter who utters it or gives it publicity, is that I will either call them, or write them to JUST STOP IT! Whereas I have previously simply changed channels and turned them off, the hate speech mongers will no longer drive me away from the public square in silence. That has sent the wrong message. My silence may have implied my consent. There will be no more of that.
I find it interesting that so much of the rhetoric in politics is fed by money. For instance, I looked up Rush Limbaugh’s salary and found out that he is at least a millionaire if not a billionaire. Some years ago I was turned off by Pat Robertson’s bid for money when he was so happy that an old lady sent in her wedding ring. Isn’t there something in the Bible that says “The love of money is the root of all evil ?” I have relatives who live in Alaska and think Sarah can do no wrong. They must know something I don’t. May God help us.
A couple thoughts (even if this is not about LCMC…): If wreckless incindiary speech is to be blamed, then the Daily Kos is even more to blame than Palin. Kos put a bullseye on Giffords, and two days before the assissination attempt, a Kos post headlined of Giffords “my Congresswoman is dead to me.” http://tinyurl.com/23c4xtd
If we are going to scale back all the things that cause nutcases to go over the top and attempt assassinations, then, in this case, we better rigorously enforce marijuana laws, and, in other cases, ban Catcher in the Rye (Chapman) and put a burqa on Jodie Foster (Hinckley).
I hope for a more civil discourse, but the level of it has been dragged down by both sides. Every excess on the right has a counterpart on the left. Alan Grayson. Pres. Obama (who calls for more civil discourse and then turns around and talks about bringing guns to knife fights.) Alec Baldwin.
Von Clauswitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. That means that militant metaphors are and will be a part of politics. Attack Ad. Target. Fight. Battle. Even “campaign.”
Sorry, but with very limited exceptions, free speech rights are nearly absolute (and, in the current milieu) are extended far beyond political speech (which was, I believe, the original intent of the founders). But no matter how vile or repulsive someone’s speech is, neither Markos Malitsis nor BlueBoy nor Gov Palin are responsible for the actions of this madman. Loughner himself is. (And possibly those who knew he was nuts and did nothing to stop him, if such exist.)
Finally, William McGurn wrote in the WSJ yesterday. I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion but his sub-headline is right on: “Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.”
PS: Palin was never going to be President anyway. And I hope she does not run. But the Left’s obsession with her makes only elevates her to the right.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Tony,
You are correct that a poster on Daily Kos went overboard (and has been roundly criticized on that board), and Representative Grayson went overboard when referring to his opponent as “Taliban”, and certainly there are other examples of left-wing excesses. But, to pick out a handful of examples of overspeech from the left and to thereby dismiss the issue on the basis that both sides do it, is a gross mischaracterization.
“False equivalency” is the term used by Paul Krugman in his NY Times article dismissing the very argument you raise:
You also mischaracterize the issue, it is not one of free speech. Having the legal right to make noxious, hateful, incendiary comments does not make it right.
Finally, thanks for reminding us that “guns don’t kill people, people do”, which frankly, is an insipid response to the serious issue of gun violence in America.
Oh Obie, Obie, Obie,
First, if you are seeking to impress, I would suggest quoting other than Krugman. 🙂 I am no Beck fan, but I do on occasion watch O’Reilly, and I have never heard what Krugman claims. I rather suspect Krugman falls into the same category as David Letterman, who claimed on air that 60% (?) of what O’Reilly ever says is crap, but admitted he has never seen the show.
Second, I never said a word about guns (except to quote the president.) It is an insipid response to put words in my mouth. What you are really arguing is that “guns don’t kill people, words kill people.” A pretty dangerous argument for a writer, don’t you think?
Tony,
What you did suggest was that only the primary causal factor, the shooter himself, should be subject to scrutiny and other lesser, potentially contributory causes are thereby exonerated. Perhaps I overstated your position, but this argument seems to me to be similar to the gun rights argument exonerating loose regulation of firearms because the primary culprit is always the shooter.
I wholeheartedly agree that words can be powerful and dangerous; indeed, that was the point of the post.
But “potentially contributory causes” are different from “actual contributory” ones. The latter deals with reality; the former with (often politically motivated) speculation.
The news reports now seem to suggest that among those “actuals” are drug use and a social norm which places high value on the rights of a potentially dangerous mentally ill person. Reportedly, law enforcement had said that ‘he may be crazy, but until he hurts someone, there is nothing we can do.’ Due to the abuses in the mental health systems of old, and the abuse of asylums by totalitarian regimes, we have a society where we cannot lock people up until they have proven themselves dangerous to themselves or others, usually by doing something destructive. Hence, we have a lot of barely functional people who are homeless. We emptied the asylums and filled the off-ramp grassy areas and homeless shelters. That is a tradeoff, and it is one that our society seems comfortable with. (Until Saturday. But I have little doubt that it will return to that.) And under those same laws, if you cannot be adjudicated mentally ill, you have the same rights, including gun possession, as any other person.
The dilemma is: how do we balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the many? I do not know the answer to that this side of the parousia.
But the reality of untreated / unrestictable mental illness seems much more an *actual* contributory cause than any political speech of any stripe.
And while I have some sympathy for the Sheriff Dupnik and Cartoonist Fitzsimmons who first raised this possibility (admittedly without any evidence) as they are personal friends of the Congresswoman and experienced the fall’s vitriolic campaign for her seat close and personal, one only has to look as far as the amoral moron quoted in the third paragraph of this article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294_Page2.html (moron may be to strong; he was smart enough to want to remain anonymous) to see a clear attempt to make political hay over this tragedy and to try to gin up an issue which seems not to have been there at all.
Finally, I agree that words can be powerful, but outside of a few legal exceptions, even if some think them dangerous, they are, and should remain, free.
Even if they are distasteful.
@Tony Stoutenburg
My last response to your last response. Really.
Again, no one disputes that Palin or Limbaugh or Beck has the legal right to express themselves as they do. But, having a legal right to free speech does not make them immune from criticism. Framing this issue as one of free speech is a red herring. And, it is also a convenient dodge to dismiss the incendiary culture that existed in this congressional district by suggesting that it is impossible to prove that Palin’s cross hairs, or any other single factor, influenced this deranged individual.
@ Obie: Contra-Krugman: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075660624213434.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h
Dueling columnists… 🙂
A most informative article concerning Palin, her rhetoric and the use of militant imagery! I don’t know how to contact you, but would you mind looking at my blogpost concerning the same subject and offer critical thoughts? I respect your work and would appreciate your feedback about mine concerning the use of metaphor in the public forum.
In any case, thank you for your work!
Steve
Tony Stoutenburg :
But “potentially contributory causes” are different from “actual contributory” ones. The latter deals with reality; the former with (often politically motivated) speculation.
How are you going to find out if something is “actual” unless you investigate the “potential?” I’m not going to waste time looking someplace I don’t feel the answer is to find the answer. If Palin has nothing to hide, let her be investigated. She’ll be found innocent if it’s the case. That goes for anyone else who might be considered involved, as well – be they left, right, or moderate. Whoever is considered a “potential” cause for this should be investigated to see if they might be an “actual” cause. I think ruling out things because we only think they are “potentially” involved and not necessarily “actually” involved is an irresponsible approach…
@Tony Stoutenburg
Tony, it all adds up. It isn’t just any one thing that incites people to violence. Given enough rhetoric from different people, the radio, the TV evangelists, the polititians slinging mud back and forth. Those who are disturbed will want the attention they can get from joining in the fray hoping that those they are trying to impress will give them credit for a bad thing well done.
Our mental health system has been hopelessly damaged by those who think it costs too much to house mentally ill people, when for some, this is the only answer.