« Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder. »
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill.
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a « climate of hate. »
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors— »lock and load »—and talked about « targeting » opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts « bullseyed » for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, « If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun »—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting « Allahu Akhbar! » the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. « Where, » asked Mr. York, « was that caution after the shootings in Arizona? »
Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.
So as the usual talking heads begin their « have you no decency? » routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
To paraphrase Justice Cardozo (« proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do »), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on « rhetoric » and a « climate of hate » to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the « rhetoric » of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the « rhetoric » and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?
Mr. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee.
Autres lectures pertinentes à propos de ce drame:
- Democrats Have Their Own “Target Map” And “Bulls Eye Map”
- Video: Democrat Harry Mitchell Places Opponent in Crosshairs
- Daily Kos (leftist website) put a bulls eye on Giffords for being too conservative
- Loughner’s Fixaton on Giffords Goes Back to 2007 (before the Tea Party)
- Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as « Left-Wing Pothead »
- Lunatic Jared Loughner Wanted to Kill Cops (He Must Be a Tea Partyer)
- Friends: Loughner was frustrated with Bush but “was never really political”
- Among his long list of favorite books in his YouTube profile are Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto
- Tucson Shooter’s ‘Favorite’ YouTube Video Shows Flag Burning
- Friends say Loughner was a 9/11 truther and an ardent atheist (He Must Be a Tea Partyer)