Political Hate Talk

There has been considerable debate about the responsibility right-wing politicians and pundits should bear for the shootings in Tucson. Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote that he was not surprised by the shootings

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

and Kim Murphy of the LA times writes that the shooter’s ramblings appear rooted in far right (though she admits obvious influence from the left). Even conservative David Frum says The Reckless Right Courts Violence and he cites numerous examples of what some have called “hate talk.” George Packer of the New Yorker notes that it is those on the right who speak of treason and tyranny while calling their political foes traitors and socialists. Others point out that the right is not the only side talking this way.

The implication appears to be that somehow all of this “hate talk” caused the shooter to take action. A recent CBS News Poll found that 57% of Americans do not think the harsh political tone of recent campaigns encouraged the shootings of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Arizona this past weekend. So, more than 40% of those polled do believe “hate talk” encouraged the shooter to act.

Many commentators on the left and on the right agree that only the shooter should be held responsible for the tragedy. I agree, but is it not appropriate for us to take this time to reflect on some of the inappropriate language and images used in political rhetoric? Rush Limbaugh claims that the Democratic party supports the shooter and is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. Instead of adding substance to the debate he spews more polarizing nonsense. He sees this as another opportunity to cry that Democrats are enemies.

In the days after the attack, news stations were showcasing Sarah Palin’s now infamous “crosshairs map” which is still available online and still includes Ms. Giffords’ name (link). Sarah Palin eventually issued a statement about the shootings in Tucson but she raised even more controversy by using a phrase which, at best, was a very poor choice of words – blood libel. Using phrases and images like these is nothing short of irresponsible. What is worse is that some dismiss these things as meaningless and not worthy of our discussion.

Before we can address those issues, if we ever do, we’ll have to endure a debate over the graphics on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. Katrina Trinko, National Review Online

Other conservatives have their own brand of either dismissal

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.
Charles Krauthammer, National Review Online

I agree that this is a longstanding practice. I’ll even agree that much is appropriate, but what about the issue at hand? What about a very popular conservative politician using crosshairs on a map indicating opponents? Is that appropriate? Is there a difference between what we tolerate from pundits and politicians. Instead of falling back on “everyone’s doin’ it,” let’s think about it.

and overreaction

But that’s shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady (D., Pa.) has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language (“lock and load!”) that could foster violence. “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” he told CNN.

If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show — as any number of murderers have been over the years — would those blaming the tea parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to “shut down” such fare?
Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online writes

Seriously? I agree – regulation on speech is not the answer – BUT we are NOT talking about a TV show here. We expect more from those who should know better. As much as I don’t like the Becks and Limbaughs of the world, I don’t hold them to as high a standard as those who actually serve in public office AND those who work for them. I do, however, hold them to a higher standard than comedians and entertainers. I will have to save that explanation for another post (which I may never write).

At the risk of sounding like a tea party patriot, I agree with Frum’s conclusion. Well, all of the first paragraph and some of the second.

It’s not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.

But he is not. He is an ambitious, liberal president who is spending too much money and emitting too much debt. His health-care ideas are too over-reaching and his climate plans are too interventionist. The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable.