It’s not about direct culpability, it’s about rightwing cultivation of anti-social lunacy

No One Listened to Gabrielle Giffords – NYTimes.com

For the sake of this discussion, let’s stipulate that Loughner was a “lone nutjob” who had never listened to Glenn Beck or been a card-carrying member of either the Tea or Communist parties. Let’s also face another tragedy: The only two civic reforms that might have actually stopped him — tighter gun control and an effective mental health safety net — won’t materialize even now.

Gun and ammunition sales spiked last week, especially for the specific varieties given the Loughner imprimatur. No editorial — or bloodbath — will move Congress to enact serious gun control (which Giffords herself never advocated and Obama has rarely pushed since 2008). Enhanced mental health coverage is also a nonstarter when the highest G.O.P. priority is to repeal the federal expansion of health care. In Arizona, cutbacks are already so severe that terminally ill patients are being denied life-saving organ transplants.

The other inescapable reality was articulated by Sarah Palin, believe it or not, in her “blood libel” video. Speaking of acrimonious partisan debate, she asked, “When was it less heated — back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?” She’s right. Calls for civility will have no more lasting impact on the “tone” of American discourse now than they did after the J.F.K. assassination or Oklahoma City. Especially not in an era when technology allows all 300 million Americans a cost-free megaphone for unmediated rants.

Did Loughner see Palin’s own most notorious contribution to the rancorous tone — her March 2010 Web graphic targeting Congressional districts? We have no idea — nor does it matter. But Giffords did. Her reaction to it — captured in an interview she did back then with Chuck Todd of MSNBC — was the most recycled, if least understood, video of last week.

The week of that interview began with the House passing the health care bill on Sunday. Within hours, on Monday morning, vandals smashed the front door of Giffords’s office in Tucson. The Palin “target” map (and the accompanying Twitter dictum to “RELOAD”) went up on Tuesday, just one day after that vandalism — timing that was at best tone-deaf and at worst nastily provocative. Not just Giffords, but at least three other of the 20 members of Congress on the Palin map were also hit with vandalism or death threats.

In her MSNBC interview that Wednesday, Giffords said that Palin had put the “crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” adding that “when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.” Chuck Todd then asked Giffords if “in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years.” She responded that colleagues who had been in the House “20, 30 years” had never seen vitriol this bad. But Todd moved on, and so did the Beltway. What’s the big deal about a little broken glass? Few wanted to see what Giffords saw — that the vandalism and death threats were the latest consequences of a tide of ugly insurrectionism that had been rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign and that had threatened to turn violent from the start.

***

A few unexpected voices have expressed alarm. After an antigovernment gunman struck at Washington’s Holocaust museum in June 2009, Shepard Smith of Fox News noted the rising vitriol in his e-mail traffic and warned on air that more “amped up” Americans could be “getting the gun out.” The former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum took on the “reckless right” that August, citing the incident at the Giffords Safeway event. But when a Department of Homeland Security report warned of far-right extremism and attacks by “lone wolves” that same summer, Gingrich called it a smear and John Boehner demanded an apology.

Last week a conservative presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty, timidly said it wouldn’t be his “style” to use Palin’s target map, but was savaged so viciously by his own camp that he immediately retreated. A senior Republican senator told Politico that he saw the Tucson bloodbath as a “cautionary tale” for his party, yet refused to be named.

What are they and their peers so afraid of? No doubt that someone might reload — the same fears that prompted Gabrielle Giffords to speak up, calmly but firmly, last March. Unless and until they can match her courage and speak out too, it’s hard to see what will change.

 

 

 

20 comments on “It’s not about direct culpability, it’s about rightwing cultivation of anti-social lunacy

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Oy Vey, she explained the purpose of the map , back in March, after the Congress had said ‘fangul’ and passed the health care bill,to politically ‘target’ the Congressman, Von Bruenn was a murderous ex con, who had last served 60 years ago, no other veterans that can be chalked up to that situation, meanwhile the Awlaki acolytes who shot
    up a Little Rock recruiting post, and subsequently Ft. Hood, that didn’t seem to a concern of DHS, Afghan vets were again slandered by Rep.
    Linda Lopez, just last week, Other antigovernment figures like Bedell and Stack also didn’t fit the DHS criteria

  2. If I had to choose between following the wisdom of Jennifer Rubin or that of Frank Rich……

    I’d instead watch Mexican wrestling re-runs.

  3. I would say that Rubin, may occasionally be wrong, in some judgements, however, Rich is not only almost always wrong
    but maliciously so, so as that example proves

  4. and I would say that Rich is almost always wrong and dumb but Rubin is always wrong, and dishonest, and dumber than a defective dogfart.

  5. Because Rich didn’t present an argument, a 22 psychotic anarchist who shouldn’t have been on the streets in the first place, slew 5 peoples including a nine year old girl, and the media sought to scapegoat a movement that sought a democratic transition of power

  6. @ CK MacLeod:
    well if you’re gonna get all huffy and insist that I read the Rich thing before I scorn it, okay.

    Now I’ve read it.

    Where’s the argument?

    Is it that senseless violence can only be prevented by keeping the people who might commit it from having guns or by being detected and placed in custodial care before they commit violent acts?

    That can’t be it because that’s pretty thin.

    or is the argument within

    the vandalism and death threats were the latest consequences of a tide of ugly insurrectionism that had been rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign and that had threatened to turn violent from the start

    leaving aside the ugliness of ‘ugly insurrectionism’,

    and the possibility that ‘rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign’ isn’t actually true,

    then I guess that things that ‘threatened to turn violent from the start’ are then definitely a threat to turn violent.

    I’m not sure of the “things” he means, but if he meant every things, then I guess that his argument is right on.

    I agree that if for the sake of this discussion we stipulate that it’s about rightwing cultivation of anti-social lunacy, we should find that’s it’s not a good thing.
    On the other hand, if it turns out that rightwing anti-social lunatics and aspirants and cultivators are 30-60% of the voting public, this may prove to be a valuable contribution to American politics and help the Republican Party return to the glory days following their adoption of the ol Southern Strategy which capitalized on the Democratic Party’s loss of the Solid South.

  7. The Southern and Ethnic strategy, (what encapsulated the Reagan Democrats which were much more about cultural issues, that the left eschewed, as it departed it’s support for Jim Crow, why John Lindsay
    was ultimately a goner, but he left a good deal of wreckage in his place, Bloomberg seems intent in forgetting those lessons, as if it’s 1969 all over again,

  8. @ fuster:
    His thesis is stated in the paragraphs directly preceding the excerpt above:

    It was easier to endlessly parse Jared Lee Loughner’s lunatic library — did he favor “The Communist Manifesto” or Ayn Rand? — than confront the larger and harsher snapshot of our current landscape that emerged after his massacre. A week on, that denial is becoming even more entrenched. As soon as the president left the podium Wednesday night, we started shifting into our familiar spin-dry post-tragedy cycle of the modern era — speedy “closure,” followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia.

    If we learn nothing from this tragedy, we are back where we started. And where we started was with two years of accelerating political violence — actual violence, not to be confused with violent language — that struck fear into many, not the least of whom was Gabrielle Giffords.

    In short, instead of using the events to initiate and extend a practical discussion about what kind of society we want to live in, we use the argument over the straw man of direct culpability as a distraction, until we’re ready to go back to business as usual. For Rich, part of that discussion would be “serious gun control” and an extended “mental health safety net” – not because they would have stopped Loughner, but because they would be part of a turn away from Loughnerism and a society threatened by its own violent disintegration. Instead, conservatives remain so intent on disintegrating the state that Republicans are afraid to condemn the excesses within their own political culture. Instead (see Byron York on Obama’s Panty Conspiracy), they will continue to portray compromise with the liberal state, and liberal opinion, as compromise with the Devil.

    Where Rich may turn out to be wrong is that the cultural reaction to Tucson and Tea Partyism may serve to split the right, and at the same time boost the left, whether or not anyone admits it openly: On the right, it’s Frum/Brooks/Douthat or its Palin/Limbaugh/Beck, but even worse than in 2008, meaning that a supposed right-center country may very well overwhelmingly re-elect a left-center President. How the far right faction would respond to such a turn of events is an open, and potentially pressing question. When you read through the comment threads at HotAir – or, if you happened to visit, the ones at National Review condemning positive reactions to O in Tucson – you don’t find many vocal people who seem emotionally prepared for 6 more years of the Alinskyist Socialite. What do these people do with their bottomless well of revulsion, suspicion, stupidity, and resentment? And what will the broad center and left of the country do in response?

  9. A castro sympathizer murdered JFK, a Palestinian Christian, his brother five years later, the first was used as an excuse for the Dodd bill, which did little to prevent the second or the Whitman shooting or anything else. If anything this resembles the aftermath of the Colin
    Ferguson shooting, a deranged man takes his frustrations out on the NY subway, that was the excuse for the 1994 bill, which was mostly
    a cosmetic thing. Now Obama didn’t rush to scapegoat the right this time, the work was done for him, in the’ve learned a fair bit in 15 years, the jury is still out, depending on how tapioca the GOP caucus turns out ot be, But recall how Newt’s rather mild proposed trimmings in that cycle, were turned into invocations of Niemoller, ‘First they came for’ and allusions to slavery, Among many examples I could cite. They dialed the rhetoric up to eleven by the 2000 election aftermath, and not long after that, the 9/11 denialism
    that is part of that wacko’s hymnal first came to light, and was given
    a fair hearing, mostly abroad, and in some significant pockets

  10. @ miguel cervantes:
    O didn’t need to scapegoat the Right. It had already scapegoated itself.

    Gun control legislation might be more significant as a harbinger of social-cultural change than for whatever practical impediments it put in the way of lunatics and other assassins.

    I’m sorry your feelings are still hurt over rhetoric deployed against the Contract with Americans. It didn’t gain much purchase during the go-go high tech peace dividend bubble economy ’90s, but, then again, neither did the CwA.

    I’m not in favor of exaggerated rhetoric on either side, but intentions and objectives also matter.

  11. first off

    When you read through the comment threads at HotAir – or, if you happened to visit, the ones at National Review condemning positive reactions to O in Tucson

    I’m already ass deep in one fine mess, Ollie, thank you very much.
    I ain’t getting within a two-day frogmarch of the National Review.
    Mr Buckley, he dead … and that’s that.

    Secondly,
    where’s the ‘two years of accelerating political violence’ beef?

    Thirdly,

    this was exactly the type of event that doesn’t result in anything much. the American’s are way into their cherry pie. the statistics on our gun ownership and abuses of same compared to Europe’s have been heroically ignored for decades.

    decrying madmen and the fools who think that the Second Amendment prohibits any kind of gun control isn’t much of an argument.
    71% of Americans responding to the question “Should the country increase the level of debt?” preferred that we do not!

    Responding to the next question “Would you prefer to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick or receive a free pizza w/ choice of toppings?” 87% preferred the pizza (unless it was from Domino’s. then the numbers reversed).

  12. Yes, and what was the result, the books were ‘cooked’ in a manner to make it look, like the budget was balanced, the chef, Franklin Raines, used the same recipe at Fannie Mae, the military was slashed, just around that the peace dividend, developed some rather bloody splinters
    in the Arabian penisula among others

  13. I try to avoid Hot Air, because it is like a petri dish for computer viruses, as I’ve recently discovered again

  14. @ fuster:
    Firstly, yeah well me neither, but just this once I skimmed through the comicscomments lambasting Rich Lowry for saying nice things about the Tucson speech.

    Secondly, according to Frank Rich all across the country. It’s difficult to make assessments and predictions because so much violence is displaced and deferred – just to give one example, a doubling of the unemployment rate may represent a vast displacement of violence, and has created much more suffering objectively than stray acts of extremism or lunacy – but also because the total political-cultural system is complex and somewhat self-correcting.

    Thirdly, polls shmolls. Numbers don’t mean anything until and unless the respondents actually are forced to take responsibility for their decisions. If we had a national referendum on the debt limit – and why shouldn’t we? – the voters would educate themselves about it and reach a much more informed decision.

    As for gun control, there are books to be written about the gun in American culture, what it has meant, and what its status in law at any time reflects about us. What’s clear is that the resort to the gun almost directly varies with degree of social alienation/disintegration of community. American conservatives embrace the social dispensation that accompanies a culture of imaginary self-reliance. If we cannot continue to displace/defer social strife into the future via greater and greater relative material abundance and opportunity in the present, then a lot of assumptions will change, whether we want them to or not, and possibly more quickly, and almost certainly in a different way, than anyone can predict.

  15. I suppose but having seen the fraud fronted by Bellesiles, and he has bee rewarded with another book contract, i am skeptical. Gun control by itself is a placebo, like soma, one would think there would be much more violence due to the economic crisis, but that has yet to be born out, it’s enough of a problem as it is

  16. http:/www/stop the aclu/2011/01/17/todays unhinged and over the top discourse comes from the washington post/

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*