Breaking news: To protect elected officials from people concealing guns, the House Republican Caucus proposed legislation today requiring all constituents who come within 20 feet of government officials to be naked.
- Kevin Hayden
If the recent tragedy in Tucson should be considered anything, it should be considered an opportunity not to be wasted. For the past few years, so much of our public discourse has been conducted at something close to full volume. I should know; I’ve played my own part in it…and I’m tired of it. So much shouting, so much anger, so much recrimination…and for what? What do we have to show for it all? Six dead innocents and several more wounded, including a Congressman whose only crime was in trying to connect with her constituents on a sleepy Saturday morning.
We Americans have always been a contentious and disputatious lot. Disagreements- sometimes loud and impassioned- have always been part and parcel of the public give and take. Unfortunately, we’re also a violent people, too often prone to settling disputes with bloodshed. The rule of law and the Second Amendment occasionally make for strange bedfellows, but it’s at least given us the means to deal effectively with those unable to separate civil discourse from violent conflict. Unfortunately, this too often happens after the fact.
Gun violence is not by any means a new phenomenon in this country. On her show Monday night, Rachel Maddow detailed a by-no-means exhaustive list of mass violence that has occurred during the 22 years that Jared Lee Loughner has walked this Earth. The one recurring theme throughout the incidents Maddow detailed was the media describing the violence as “unimaginable”. Shocking, yes…but given the frequency with which the angry and unbalanced take up arms against the innocent, this sort of violence is all too easy to imagine. The question becomes what we as a society will be willing to do about it. Traditionally, we gasp in horror, grieve the unthinkable…and then move on as if nothing happened. Will the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords serve as a catalyst for change…or will it merely be just another stop on our Magical Mystery Tour of “Unimaginable” Violence?
From where I sit, there are two problem areas that need to be addressed if we are to have any hope of changing what has become an increasingly bitter and poisonous public debate. First is the easy, casual trafficking in hate speech and demonizing of those we disagree with. Second, we must do something about our national obsession with, and easy access to, guns. If we refuse, or fail, to address both of these problems areas, we can and really should fear for the future of our Republic, which may ultimately be ruled by the angry, the brutal, and/or the corrupt.
The first, and easiest, problem, is that of language, anger, and hate. It requires no legislation to change to way we regard and interact with one another. It takes no formal action to decide that we need to dial back the rhetoric, the hatred, and the willingness to see those we disagree with as evil and worthy of destruction. I like a healthy debate as much as, perhaps even more, than the next person…but when debate crosses from the conceptual to the personal, something is horribly wrong. Ideas are not the problem. Most Americans, though we can, will, and generally do disagree frequently, while understanding that ideas are what make this country thrive. You many not agree with my idea, nor I with yours, but that interaction, that clash of ideas, is often what helps us rise above whatever our problems may be and find solutions.
All of us, regardless of what side of the ideological fence we happen to occupy, are Americans. We all love our country, and we all want the best for it. We, all of us, need to remember that ideas, and those who hold them are not the enemy. Those who think differently are not evil, nor are they worthy of destruction. Those who use language that advocates the destruction of those they disagree with do all of us a disservice by contributing to the creation of an increasingly poisonous public discourse. We ALL need to dial back the anger and the rhetoric…but let’s face reality. To say that both sides, Left and Right, are equally guilty, is as inaccurate as it is just plain false.
The atmosphere that exists in the public domain today can in large part (though not completely, of course) be tied to the anger, vitriol, and violent rhetoric emanating from politicians and media on the Far Right. Rush Limbaugh feigns outrage over the idea that he and his ilk could be held responsible for poisoning the public dialogue (he even claims that Jared Lee Loughner had the “full support” of the Democratic Party ). Sharron Angle raised the specter of “Second Amendment remedies” during her campaign for Harry Reid’s Senate seat. Newt Gingrich found a way to blame Liberals for the massacre in Tucson. David Frum thought it appropriate to blame Loughner’s marijuana use. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The Far Right uses hate speech and violent rhetoric as currency…because it works. For anyone to make the argument that the poisonous atmosphere in this country doesn’t increase the likelihood of violence is simply wrong. Those on the Far Right who continued filling the airwaves with their bile bear some responsibility. How much is a matter of debate, of course. Jared Lee Loughner is the one who made the decision to target Rep. Giffords; he made the decision to pull the trigger, and he bears ultimate responsibility for his actions. Nonetheless, recent history is replete with incidents of violence directed against public officials, usually on the Left, after someone on the Far Right advocated, whether implicitly or obliquely, for violent action against those officials.
ALL of us need to recognize and come to grips with the reality that words have meaning. While no one can say that Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or anyone else on the Far Right is directly responsible, there are those charismatic enough to create a reaction in someone who might be unbalanced and predisposed to violence. Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. While I would never advocate for muzzling those who engage in incentive and inflammatory speech, I do believe that those who do engage in those forms of speech need to understand and recognize what impact there words can have.
Is it too much to ask that those on the Far Right exercise some judgment and caution going forward? Is it too much to ask that they, and all of us, recognize the need to dial back the venom? Disagreement and debate are part and parcel of a healthy, vibrant democracy. Violence should have no place in our democracy.
The second problem we face is the reality that America is the most heavily armed society on Earth. Because of the influence of groups like the National Rifle Association, Americans can arm themselves in a way possible nowhere else in the world. How many of these guns find their way into the hands of mentally unbalanced sorts like Jared Lee Loughner? Enough that it should really scare the Hell out of any thinking American.
I understand the Second Amendment. I get the whole “right to bear arms” thing…but is that right absolute? Should it be? Is it really necessary that Americans have access to assault weapons and extended magazines, weapons designed for one thing and one thing only- killing human beings? (Side note: The sale of Glocks in Arizona have skyrocketed since the massacre in Tucson. Nice.) Should we as a society not be able to draw a line between weapons used for sport and defense and those whose sole and only purpose is killing human beings?
How many more people have to die before we wake up and demand legislation that curtails our “right” to bear arms whose only purpose is the slaughter of human beings? Or are we really OK with the idea that implicit in our slavish devotion to the Second Amendment is the accession to the idea of “acceptable losses”, the idea that some Americans will have to die in order to keep us truly free?
I’m not going to pretend that I have the answers, or even that I really know what the answers are. What I do know is that we have a real opportunity to make a difference here. Will we use the tragic massacre in Tucson to help minimize the chance of such an event happening again? Or will we simply bemoan the “unimaginable” and then simply carry on as if nothing happened…until the next “unimaginable” and “unspeakable” tragedy?
I’d like to say I’m optimistic that we can and will take the steps necessary to reduce the risks and possibilities, but our history in these matters doesn’t lend itself to optimism. I can only hope that I’ll be proven wrong; I’ll gladly take the hit. I hope that Americans, and their elected representatives will wake up and recognize that we simply cannot afford to continue down this path…unless we’re willing to accept the ideas that some us will die senseless in order to keep America free.
