NEW YORK - So now both left and right are blaming each other following the shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona, that killed six and wounded at least 13 others.
From the left, the charges are that Republican Sarah Palin's placement of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on a political hit list was taken literally by the gunman who critically wounded the Democratic legislator. Keith Olbermann, the television talk-show host, couldn't resist exploiting the rampage by demanding that Republicans repudiate Palin's violent talk or itself be condemned.
From the right comes anger at the idea that Republicans and tea-party types are the only ones who use strong rhetoric.
Yes, Palin did create a list of candidates and place them in her virtual cross hairs. But Democrats, too, constructed lists. The Daily Kos, which is criticizing Palin, itself placed Giffords on a roster of "bad apples" back in 2008. Last summer a Democratic politician in New Hampshire posted an online comment about the death of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens in a plane crash and added: "just wish Sarah and Levy were on board," the latter referring to Levi Johnston, the father of Palin's grandchild.
The evidence doesn't suggest that any of the victims of the Jan. 8 shopping center rampage, including U.S. District Judge John Roll and a 9-year-old child, who were both slain, were shot for their politics, right- or left-wing. The evidence suggests that Jared Loughner, the suspect, is insane. Giffords, a Blue Dog, pro-gun, pro-Obamacare Democrat, has found critics on both sides.
Still, if the evil moment is going to be exploited, let it be exploited in a useful way, as an impetus to change the tone of discourse, to self-censor our own modern habit of violent talk.
Olbermann, around the same time he was creepily assigning blame, also offered up something good. It was that: "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or anything in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence."
Everybody else (right, center, and left) should be saying the same thing. At the same time, we can drop the character assassination that's become modern entertainment.
That's true for Rachel Maddow, CBS, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, CNN, Jon Stewart, and the birthers. It's true for all the snarky blog posters and tweeters who gleefully suspended their inhibitions and keyed in material about crushing wingnuts, impaling feminazis, and so on. It's also true for all the violent talkers in Arizona, where the Pima County sheriff commented that the state was out of control.
As for Congress, instead of locking and loading, lawmakers should be ready to "lock arms" and unite, just as House Speaker John Boehner suggested over the weekend.
If this sounds too teacher-preacher-ish, we may just want to live with that. Here's why: there's not much good that comes from violent rhetoric, or even ad hominem cracks. Even if the rhetoric remains metaphorical, as it almost always does, character assassination and violent talk does damage. The policy issues before the country are too subtle for shooting, or even shouting.
Exhibit A: the matter of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. If you're passing a law that says a president must prove he was born in the United States, as Arizona lawmakers contemplated doing, you are giving up some of the time and political capital you need to work on border patrol and immigration. It was the latter that preoccupied Judge Roll, who asked for federal resources to handle the surge in felony cases involving drugs and crime along the border.
The health-care law, a topic important to Giffords, is Exhibit B. Many people still object to the "end of life planning" component in new Medicare documents. But it's hard to take up "death panels" when you're worried about death threats.
Palin's critics are saying the Arizona shooting has damaged her chance to become president. That's only true if she subsequently demonstrates that tough talk is all there is to her. If she is a serious policymaker, it's time she dig into the details of fixing laws.
The same holds for politicians of both parties. Even without the shock of a tragedy, this is an easier moment than some to commence an era of civility. It's not an election year. Democrats and Republicans share power in Congress. Bipartisan work can succeed if both parties get involved. It can reduce some of the political frustration that fuels the rage that in turn fuels the talk. And Gabrielle Giffords would like that.
AMITY SHLAES, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a Bloomberg News columnist.
Comments (16)
Add commentI am sick of hearing how this is Palins fault
Blaming Sara Palin for this is the stupidest and most distorted excuse for slinging hatred that I have ever heard in 55 yrs of watching America self destruct.
I would personally like to thank all of the hate slingers for helping take us to a lower level than our country could possibly have ever hoped to stoop to.
Im sick of....
This sort of incitement.
I dont know when Bloomberg first published this. If it is current (day or two) then they should be as shamed as the BDD.
The reposting of this column is clearly an attempt to incite.
Here, Here, Mr. Sober!
When I read what you had to say, all I could say to myself was, "here, here!". You sure got that right. The libs are all getting excited and they are gonna call for taking our guns. Well, DO NOT TAKE MY GUN! What the libs refuse to accept is that the more strict the gun law, the more gun crime there is. You can look it up your self if you do not believe me.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11782_20deadliestgunstatesfrommississ...
This just goes to show you, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Look at the list. The states with the loosest gun laws have little violent crime. Arizona is a good example. All folks can get a gun but there gun murder rate is not the highest in the USA - look at the list, it is way below mississipi - just look at that list! The truth of the matter is that the more people are carrying guns the safer everybody are. Even the poor congress gal had her own glock pistol. i just be she wishes she had been carrying it on saturday. i think that if everyone was carrying, there would be hardly no crime at all because if that young crazy had known that lots of folks in the crowd were carrying then he would have left the folks alone
and another thing about what you say. I couldnt agree with you more. Sarah Palin is the victim here. What happened to her is so sad. it is shamful the way the libs and the lib media is going after Rush and Glen Beck and Sarah Palin and Sharron Angel. Like its there fault or something. Poor Rush has suffered enough, leave him alone. Rush is right when he says that we are now the majority and most folks are just like us now which is such a good think
I dont know about eveyone else but I for one am so tired of hearing us preached too by a muslim president who wasn't even borne in this country. face facts, folks, that is the truth, we are taking our directions from Obummer who is not even a real american and is a muslim too boot!
I here what you are saying Mr Sober it is enuff to drive a man to drink but I thing that if Palin or a good old boy like Mr Mccane (I hope he runs again!) was president this would never have happened. though it is a tragedy it may be a blessing in disguise because semiautomatic pistols are selling like hot cakes now again esepcially in arizona but hopefully everywhere and i sure hope this tragedy helps shake us all up and make us safer. How do you ask do we make ourselves safer? The answer is, buy more guns! If everyone had a gun then we would all be safe.
Alls I can say is, if Obummer comes after me and asks for my gun, i am goinna say HELLSNO
DNTMG
Here is more proof to my point
Here is another link that proves it once again, the less you regulate, the safer you are. the states with the weekest gun laws are the ones where you are least likely to have gun related crime! Here, Here!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11782_20deadliestgunstatesfrommississ...
I live in Mexico during the
IIn Mexico it is illegal to buy a gun and political debates usually end up with some one shot.
If you think criminalizing gun ownership what you will get is an
increased murder rate and unstable politic situations.
that's what happened when Mexico made guns hard to get,
plus it encouraged drug and gun trafficking from the US.
If you want Mexico, take most of our guns away, then border control will be
unnecessary.
everybody needs to calm down.
no one is going to take your guns away. think about it. the house is republican.
that said, i'm not sure how anyone sees this as a palin bashing piece. though we've been beat to death with the idea over the past few days of returning to civil discourse (or discourse at all, depending on your definition), this author isn't even saying that there's a direct line between loughner and a coherent political ideology that caused his acts. the man acted alone.
the point about how we talk to each other is important though, because, if this event wasn't caused by ideologies, it sure as heck showed that we, as americans, are ready to breakdown and start looking suspiciously at our neighbors as soon as something happens. both the left and the right have been rushing to blame each other for some aspect of this event or the fallout. that's not a constructive mindstate, and anyone who calls for more cohesion but wants to say that this only happens on one side is missing the point.
gun laws vs. gun fatalities list
DNTMG-
You might want to read that list again. It actually generally shows that the states with less restrictive gun policies have more gun fatalities. That said, we're talking about differences of a few fatalities for every 100,000 people.
Edit: upon reading DNTMG's post, I am beginning to suspect that the account holder may only be playing the part of a right wing, gun aficianado.
No No, Mr Mac...
Dear Mr Mac,
When I read what you had to say, I just shook my head and said to myself, "no, no he doesn't get it".
Nosir I am not playing a part of anything except saying that we all need to play a part in voting the libs out. As for a direct line for cohernt idealogy and so forth, I do not understand what you are saying, all I am saying is that Sarah Palin is as big a victim here as anyone, folks should leave her alone and realize that all this could have been avoided if it werent for so many libs. Heck even in arizona although they have a good, smart conservative governer now, the one before her (janet neopolitano) was so liberal that she tried to get tax money to pay for sexual partners of gays and lesbiens to support their agenda and the new governer says no way, no way gay, we are not gonna use tax money to move there agenda forward.
As for me i guess it's fine to have equal rights to a point, but NO SPECIAL RIGHTS and the lib dem governer was giving special rights to the homosexuals which is an abomination to clear thinking folks (and to god i might add!) and thank god that Obummer took her for his ultralib cabinet and we have a clear thinking governer back there now.
Now if we can find a way to fix the governer problem here in Minnesota by voting this ultra lib out we might have a chance again in the future. it is sure crazy times when the majority don't rule and the minority gets what they want such as a governer who dosen't even match the will of the common folk.
DNTMG
there are six people dead in arizona.
i don't see how sarah palin is a big a victim in this situation as six dead people and one congresswoman in critical condition. it's deplorable to say that this "could have been avoided if it weren't for so many libs."
this was a massacre perpetrated by disturbed young man. the blood is on his hands, and his alone. though i don't think this was caused by political rhetoric, i think our reaction to it is as big of an idictment of our current state of affairs as if the massacre had been caused by someone moved by political rhetoric.
though not all of us agree with one another, we are all americans, and we should all be entitled to our opinions and to voice them, if we choose. we need to be less reactionary on both sides; generally, whether conservatives or liberals are in power, the poor stay poor and the wealthy stay wealthy and most of us don't see a huge change in our condition from year to year (current economic situation, notwithstanding). a political sea change is not the first sign of the apocolypse, and, chances are, it will only be a few years before the next happens.
what we should expect is that our politicians get to work addressing the serious problems this nation faces in thoughtful, productive manor...not one of simplistic characterizations and sound bite quotations, focused solely on the next cycles electoral gains and losses. america is falling hard in education, we still spend more money than any other nation on health care per capita, and our debt as a portion of GDP is at a higher rate than ever before. we've got armed forces spread across the globe, and we've got no discernable long-term energy plan. these problems are real, and they're coming at a time when a large portion of americans have become hyper-partisan, or worse yet, have tuned politics out altogether because their cynicism has been justified repeatedly in our current affairs.
"libs" aren't the problem in this nation, and neither are conservatives. our problem is that we've lost the ability to see the best in our neighbors. now we look at them suspiciously whenever something in this country goes wrong...i feel that's more dangerous to this country than any other problem we face.
rights
It's pretty hard to have civil discourse when our morally depraved politicians are lawfully stealing away our constitutional rights on a regular basis. When someone violates your rights as all of us citizens have been violated by our bankrupt state. Civil discourse gets you thrown under the bus and noone will talk to you. Sadly, its biggest voice and most cash which gets you whatever you want in DC..
You give my freedom back, and I'll give you civil discourse; thats the agreement and I'll shake on it.
Ecocafemx for president!
When I read what my smart buddy exocafemx said, I said to myself, "now, there is a wise fella!" I would vote for you for president!
What the mac ranger lib fails to recognize is that their is no way to have a converstation with a lib. "civil discourse" sounds fancy but i dont even know what that means. I know it does mean giving special rights to homosexuals, taking away our guns and our constitutational right (as exocafemx says) and our 3rd amendment right for gun carriage.
As rush limbaugh says, we are in the majority now. And as for the rich getting richer and so forth, this is what god wants and what america needs because we all work for someone who is rich, or sell something to someone that is rich, in america, and that is why the idea of raising taxes on the rich will not only kill the economy, but it is bad for america and in fact morally wrong.
As for this crazy boy in arizona, the media is covering up the fact that he is a lib, and let us not forget that the reason this happened is the crazy strictness of gun laws that makes it so hard for law abiding citizens to arm themselves and take care of their property (and there loved ones). If more people in that mall had been armed this tragedy could have been avoided. More blood on the hands of the libs and there stupidity.
Let us also remember that sarah palin is a victim here. listening to her last night on the tube and comparing it to obummer, no comparison. she sounded like a president should sound and even as a woman she could be president. not to mention the fact that she is a christian not a muslim and she was born in america!
No, i thing the real problem here is that we have the libs ruining everything. you wonder why there is no energy policy as you say and it is ridiculus that we are not drilling more, there is oil all over! you talk about so called health care but you forget that the libs shoved health care down our throats whether we wanted it or not. so what if 40 million americans dont have it, well they must not want it very bad otherwise they would pull themselves up by there bootstraps like the old gipper used to say and they would get it themselves. i dont want to pay for a bunch of freeloaders and mark my words making health care available to all americans will ruin this country. it is just the first step, after they shove this down our throat they will come for our guns and the homosexual activity. that is why we must do all we can to get rid of libs!
DNTMG
well...
it's actually the 2nd amendment which protects your right to bear arms, but who's counting? and arizona has some of the loosest gun policies in the nation, which probably means that the people who weren't carrying guns to the grocery store were doing it because they didn't want to, and probably didn't think they needed to. what kind of country would we be living in if people expected they should be packing in the produce section, for fear of a massacre?
everyone is in favor of liberties, which is why i've argued vociferously against gun control as a reaction to this event. i also think most of the PATRIOT Act was unnecessary too. but, more or less, you're free to do the same things you were ten years ago.
as for taking money out of politics, i'm in favor of it too. no undisclosed donations, no corporate donations, no union donations, no special interest money.
i'm unclear as to what special privileges gay americans are getting, could you clarify that?
that was my thought.
but, if you look at all of his posts on different topics, it's hard to tell if he is or isn't real. he's pretty consistent, and, at times, he's not being the best foil he could be.
herc, i'd like to blame politicians for selling us up the river, but the real truth is that it's a still a government for the people, of the people, and by the people. unfortunately, i think it's generally fair to say that they reflect american values, and the majority of americans can't seemed to be bothered enough to come up with any real solutions or provide any real oversight.
what i fail to comprehend is how americans can continually be so dissatisfied with the product we turn out, and never think to look seriously at the process. what was the '08 presidential election...half a billion dollars or something? how many years have been locked in two-party gridlock? has either party displayed the incentive of governing over continuous campaigning? is there one?
this really probably doesn't apply to anyone reading this forum, so i might as well say into the abyss, but if we don't start paying attention and demanding that the kids stop squabbling and address our problems, we're going really have some problems.
Baret you got it wrong
I am just a citizan and I want to protect my rights under the constitution that is all, sir. I am sorry I got my amendments mixed up, but i must say if a soldier serving his country wanted to stay with me, i have no objectin (Soldier, sailor, etc)
DNTMG
hmm, the constitution...
you understand that your third amendment right comes to because the british forced colonial homesteads to board redcoats, right?
and, in the event our government has a need to quarter troops domestically, that it may be under circumstances that you disagree with...you understand that, right?
DNTMG
is my favorite poster. I nearly sent Sierra Mist all over my monitor on lunch break.