Tucson Billboard

Gee, what is it like to live in Tuscon? Is all interaction, all communication about shooting? (This comes from HuffPost.) Are right wingers incapable of thinking without reference to this sort of metaphor or analogy?

Kelly-Giffords Campaign Messages

In my post yesterday I speculated, without evidence, that the electoral campaign last fall in the 8th Arizona Congressional District was likely to have involved themes of weapons and violence and that Jared Loughner would not have had to try hard to encounter such language or imagery. Well, here are a couple of examples from the the fellow who ran against Gabrielle Giffords. He is tea party darling Jesse Kelly. The top image is an announcement that reportedly appeared on Kelly's web page - I am not sure whether the event actually ever took place. The bottom image is of the candidate himself going to war, presumably against the dastardly liberals. (Thanks to Stan Banos for the links.. And no do not support the buffoon Matt Drudge!)

If you visit Kelly's defunct campaign web page now you find a standard comment deploring senseless violence. No mention there about this sort of campaign tactic.

Circling the Wagons: Conservatives & Jared Loughner

It would be nice (but wholly unexpected) if a single prominent conservative politician or media mouthpiece would so much a countenance the possibility that right wing rhetoric is even occasionally a bit out of hand. And it would be even nicer if they would acknowledge that it might be possible that those who are mentally unbalanced might be influenced by extreme rhetoric in dangerous ways.

American conservatives are falling over themselves to insist that Jared Loughner is simply a mentally disturbed individual. They point out that his Internet ramblings were just that, ramblings, and so incoherent. Loughner was not a conservative ideologue.* So, on their account, there is no - literally zero - connection between right wing hyperbole, on the Internet or talk-radio or in electoral campaigns, and Loughner's attempt to shoot his "liberal" Congresswoman to death.

This is a sensitive issue. Loughner did something despicable and criminal. No other description will do. But we do need some sort of explanation. That hardly is the same thing. There is no doubt that Loughner is mentally ill. The question is whether that is a sufficient account. I do not think so. And I think that the willingness of conservative figures in the media, in politics, and among the citizenry to engage in de-humanizing violent rhetoric established a crucial context within which Loughner formulated his plans. It is, after all, simply OK these days to carry your weapon to a political event. Just ask conservatives to say otherwise.

Of course, neither the bigoted, reactionary talk radio jocks, nor lunatic web-page sponsors, nor opportunistic politicos on the right instructed Loughner to do anything. And, of course, it is well beyond the ability of social scientists to establish anything like a specific causal explanation in cases like this. Indeed, social science is not much use in establishing general patterns across apparently similar cases. (Which is not to say that they have not tried; for instance here and here.) But having conceded all that, it seems implausible to suggest, as conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to David Brooks are doing, that there is no connection - none - between conservative rhetoric and Loughner's shooting spree. The impulse is to simply chalk this up to the actions of an insane person, thereby individualizing and depoliticizing the event. While I may be wrong, I think this is unpersuasive. Here is why:

(1) Compare Loughner to Seung-Hui Cho, the mentally disturbed student who opened fire on students, staff and faculty at Virginia Tech in 2007. The differences are instructive. First, Cho reportedly was diagnosed from an early age with a set of specific mental disorders. Nothing I have read thus far - for instance this report in The Guardian - suggests that the same is true of Loughner. Second, Cho did not seek out a political figure to assassinate; he shot up a college campus, presumably because he felt aggrieved by fellow students or his academic environment. By contrast, Jared Loughner hunted his target down and shot her at a political event. Why did he not shoot up the Community College from which he'd been expelled? Why did he not go to the Army recruitment center where he'd been rejected? Why did he not track down any of the myriad right-wing politicians roaming across Arizona? He did none of those things, even though, in the case of the College and the Recruiters, the potential sources of alienation and resentment were clear and proximate.

(2) The right typically falls over itself to take credit when its "message" seems to have influenced people to do this or that - say elect Scott Brown over Martha Coakley. But in this instance they insist that there is simply no possible way that quite specific messages - like Sarah Palin's targeting of Gabrielle Giffords - could have any influence on the thinking or actions of anyone. Palin's advertisement was especially prominent and blatant, but not, I suspect, unique in attacking Giffords during the election last fall. Loughner would not have had to expend much effort (if any) to come into contact with the attacks. Indeed, if he were (as news reports suggest) already predisposed to dislike Giffords, he arguably would've been primed to notice them. Again, this is not to say that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to induce Jard Loughner to do anything. It is simply to say that vicious attacks using violent language or imagery create a cultural ecology of permissiveness in which violence against ones political opponents might seem acceptable. In my view the right in the U.S. has done just that.**

Those on the right in America love to wax eloquently about the virtues of personal responsibility. In this instance, however, they are running as fast as they might from the notion that they - media types, politicos, street-corner screamers - might have contributed in any way whatsoever to creating an ecology in which violent language has become routinized.

My friend Susan makes the important point that, even if it were warranted, there is little that we might do collectively to rein in vitriolic political language. We can answer back, of course. But there is no call for legal penalties for engaging in political speech. (Although I do not think carrying your side arm to a political meeting or coffee shop or church is a speech act. As such that behavior can and should be regulated tightly.) Susan suggests that what we need is tighter regulation on the purchase and ownership of outrageous weaponry (like the 30 round magazines that turned Loughner's pistol into an assault weapon) that is useful only for shooting people. I agree. But, how many conservatives are lining up to back anything like that? (The lunacy of Arizona's lax gun laws is a topic for another time. Let's just say that an armed citizenry did nothing to prevent the Tuscon shootings, either as a deterrent or in the event.) And Susan prompted me to wonder about something else too. How many conservatives, having depicted the Tuscon shootings as the handiwork of a lunatic, are going to buy a plea of 'Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" in this instance? Will they be happy if Jared Loughner, madman, ends up not in prison but in a mental institution?
__________
* Does the typical caller to Limbaugh or Beck (or Rachel Maddow, for that matter) have a coherent political ideology? Incoherence on that score hardly differentiates Loughner from most Americans.

** And it is not the case, I suspect, that one can simply say "Well, both sides engage in that sort of rhetoric ... blah, blah." I do not have quantitative data, but am willing to wager that the right engages in violent rhetoric and does so in more prominent venues than do "liberals." Any takers?

P.S.: Updated the next morning ~ You can find Brooks developing his rationalizations and evasions here.

Graphic Politics, The Full Monty

Since apparently, many of the right wing agitators like Palin are scrambling to take down the incriminating evidence regarding how they promote violence, I figure it is important to provide an archive. Here, I've lifted the full graphic created by those lost in Sarah-land. As expected, Sarah sends condolences but takes no responsibility. Indeed, according to her minions she is totally not responsible for the acts of an insane person. Here is the post from The Caucus blog at The Times:

One of Sarah Palin's top aides responded Sunday to mounting criticism that she had helped to incite the kind of violence that exploded in Arizona at a meet-and-greet by Ms. Giffords, wounding 20 and killing six.

In the wake of the shooting, many people drew attention to a map of the United States that had been part of one of Ms. Palin's Web sites that showed targets on the districts of lawmakers who supported President Obama's health care legislation.

Ms. Giffords was one of the targeted lawmakers, as she noted in an interview on MSNBC last year.

In a radio interview Saturday night, one of Ms. Palin's top aides, Rebecca Mansour, said of the map of lawmakers: "We never, ever, ever intended it to be gun sights." Ms Mansour said attemps to tie Ms. Palin to the violence were "obscene" and "appalling."

"I don't understand how anyone can be held responsible for someone who is completely mentally unstable like this," Ms. Mansour said. "Where I come from the person who is actually shooting is culpable. We had nothing whatsoever to do with this."

She added: "People who knew him said that he is left wing and very liberal. But that is not to say that I am blaming the left for him either."

Ms. Mansour, who helps run SarahPAC, Ms. Palin's political action committee, made the remarks to Tammy Bruce, a radio talk show host, on a podcast made public on the internet. Ms. Bruce is introduced at the beginning of her show as "a chick with a gun and a microphone."

Ms. Bruce complained on her show that liberals were incorrectly politicizing the shooting by blaming conservatives.

"We all know that the liberals, there's something wrong with them," Ms. Bruce said. "The reaction on the left was to start blaming somebody."

Ms. Bruce added that: "Saying that a mass murdering crazy guy is representative somehow of the political dialogue going on, especially with the non violent Tea Party movement....and yet there are attach this to the tea party and other politicians."

I'd characterize this as the obtuse making excuses for the obtuse. The shooter in Tuscon clearly had a screw (or two) loose. But he didn't dream this scenario up on his own. And, the Palin crowd are hardly alone; think of all the nutters wearing their guns to political meetings last year. But here is the question to Palin and others: if there is no connection between the assassination of the federal judge and the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman and the murder of the nine year old girl, then why remove the graphic? If it was OK to run that graphic last fall, why not keep it available now?

Graphic Politics

Well, how should we interpret this sort of graphic? I suppose that it is an innocent picture and that anyone who takes it seriously is an insane madman? Guns don't kill people, and pictures don't either. Right. And, of course, firearms belong in church and coffee shops and public meetings. Right, again. I've commented on such nuttiness here before. So where is the responsibility? That is a term that conservatives love to toss around - as though they are committed to values. Is it time yet for conservatives to stand up and not just decry 'senseless violence,' but say 'our rhetoric and our politics inform and contribute to the violence'? I'm guessing that will not happen.

Best Shots (129) ~ Zed Nelson

(156) Zed Nelson ~ ... portrait of a gun owner ... (1 September 2010).

For my views on guns, Americans, and their 'constitutional right' to endanger themselves and their families or to try to intimidate others in public spaces ... see these posts.

Doonesbury Offers Free Advertising to Starbucks

I don't read Doonesbury much - but Trudeau seems to be focusing his wit on the knuckleheads. Last weekend it was the tea-party contingent. Both strips © Gary Trudeau .... you can find the strip here. I presume this one will go on a few days. And I suspect the guy in the red plaid shirt is pretty much the median gun-toter on line for a soy latte - a 50 year old whose store of adjectives runs out with "Awesome."

A Rant About Guns and Stupidity ~ Coming to a Starbucks Near You!

Last year I read a series of reports in The New York Times [0] [1] [2] [3] about the pastor of an evangelical congregation in Kentucky who was encouraging not just gun ownership, but actively inviting his congregants to wear sidearms to church. And, of course, in Tennessee and Arizona the authorities have passed laws [4] allowing concealed weapons in bars, so long as the bearer of arms refrains from drinking (of course, if a customer has his weapon concealed isn't there some sort of problem identifying who should be refused service?). As a writer for The Times quipped, by imposing that restriction the new laws were successful primarily at "in effect, creating a new category of customer, the designated shooter."

I have written about what I take to be the lunacy of gun ownership here many times before. It is not so much that I am opposed to guns and gun owners. I live in an area where lots of people own guns for hunting. Some people, too, also own guns 'just because' they can or they want to. Sort of like collecting postage stamps or (as I've said before) liking lima beans or not. I'm not worried too much about those folks. I don't hunt and I know that having a gun in the house means it is more likely to be used against a family member or oneself than an intruder. But that is not my problem.

What worries me are people who feel the need to parade their fear and inadequacy in public places where there is no plausible reason to carry a gun. They proclaim 'I don't need a reason, its my right' - but that is not a reason. It is petulance and posturing. We get lots of rhetoric, of course, that there is no need to fear law abiding citizens bringing their guns to political meetings, or church services, or schools, or into bars. But it seems to me a sign of cognitive deficiency to think you need to bring guns into any of those places. Sure you can because in many cases the law allows you to do so. So what? The laws allow you to drive 7-and-a-half-miles per hour in a 45 MPH zone at rush hour too.

If you are going to church to pray, do you think your handgun will protect you from God's wrath? If you are going to a political meeting, do you think your side arm makes people take you more seriously or makes your arguments more cogent. If you don't plan to use it lock it in a drawer someplace safe. If you do plan to use it, don't protest otherwise. It makes you look like an idiot.* What I am worried about is what happens when people with incredibly poor judgment bring guns to places where they are totally out of place. And one pretty good indicator of poor judgment would be bringing guns to any of the places I've mentioned above.

I don't go to church. So I suppose if the faithful want to shoot one another there - or at least be prepared to do so - it is none of my affair. But now, it turns out that a place where I do go pretty regularly is allowing customers to carry sidearms. That place? Starbucks. You can read a report here at The Guardian, where the disdainful writer is not nearly disdainful enough. I need my handgun at the coffee shop because .... why? The barrista hasn't made my decaf, extra-hot, vente, non-fat, soy, mocha to my liking? Or, maybe the kid behind me in line looks dangerous? This is pathetic.

Go here and tell the Starbucks brass that they are catering to idiots and that you won't spend a dime in their stores until they stop doing so.
__________
* Speaking of looking like an idiot, defending your inappropriate behavior by referring to what the founding fathers or the pioneer ancestors did (e.g., bringing guns to church, etc.) is especially dim. Those same forebears treated blacks as slaves and counted them as 3/5 of a person. They denied women the vote. It is a sign of progress that we no longer do those things, among many others. Make the analogy.