When the news from Tuscon hit the airways, many people assumed that the shooter was an extremist who was responding to the level of inflammatory political rhetoric. That seems to have been incorrect. The shooter was apparently running on his own motor – a psychotic illness as yet undefined. His response to outside influences, if any, remains unknown. But the right wing pundits have responded to these early assumptions in unison – that the left is opportunizing on this tragedy in order to discredit their opponents. For example, Rush Limbaugh’s front page yesterday had the following leads:
If you’re not familiar with Rush Limbaugh, this barrage of invectives is standard fare. What’s slightly different from any other day is that all of the articles are about the same thing, rather than lodging a wide range of complaints spread across the Democrat/Liberal/Left spectrum. And the patriotic Republican/Conservative/Right heroically resisting the attacks/incompetence/deceit of the Democrat/Liberal/Left is also an everyday theme.
If Rush Limbaugh were to read this blog, would he characterize what I say in a similar way – as a monotonous rehashing of the same points? I doubt it. Instead of talking about what I write as being predictable liberal blather, he would first define me as a Liberal [or Democrat, or Communist, or Godless Atheist, or some combination]. Then he would talk about my motives, specifically my hidden motives. He would use words like "sick," "desperate," "despicable," "irresponsible," to describe me, and my motives would be seen as misguided, devious, and destructive. I would be either a pitiful person [as in envious of the Republican success in the midterms] or an evil person [as in dead set on destroying the American Constitution and Christianity]. In short, I would be wrong and unworthy of a voice in the political dialog – 100% wrong.
And this time Limbaugh is right. I jumped the gun [
inevitable…]. I was wrong…
I got your memo Mickey and commend your follow-through in this post. Admittedly, I remain fuzzy on the issue. I think everybody is missing the point that it was plain and simple a really lousy idea for Ms. P (and Rush and Glenn and cetera) to say the things they feel compelled to say and do some of the things they feel compelled to do. No-one has proposed a grand jury to consider direct involvement of anyone other than the fellow apprehended at the scene of the crime.
Rep. Giffords was interviewed on 25 March 2010 and calmly explained that the ex-Governor of Alaska’s language and choice of metaphor had “consequences”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs)
What more damnable connection can or needs to be made? I wonder what she will have to say about all of this and I pray that she will be well enough to return to her life and her family that we may one day learn her thoughts on the matter.
I’d guess she might absolve and forgive any particular person(s) from “blame” or “guilt by association” but also lay waste the claim that language and metaphor play no material role in what can actually happen in the world.