The heroes of the Tucson are well known and it is no surprise that so many got involved to stop the carnage and help save lives. That’s what we do, that’s who we are. We will always need to rely on our neighbors to get through the pain. Even when our neighbors disagree with us on how to vote or how to govern, they still deserve our respect and civility.
A lot has been written about the meanness of our politics and many place the blame on the verbal cruelty so popular with the some on the right today. The truth is their language is not going to change as long as two parties exist and liberals get elected.
Would Limbaugh, Beck or the Fox talkers have any power without the drama they must create to keep their base focused on fear and anger? Using strong language has always worked when it comes to getting people ginned up and angry about issues that may not be worth any actual outrage. Winning an election is also no guarantee that the results will ever be respected. Losing becomes an excuse to up the ante of disrespect toward the winner. It is an old shtick, perfected by today’s highly paid professionals.
During the 60’s, we on the angry left used the emotional outrage about the war in Vietnam to say horrible things about Johnson and Nixon. Today, some conservatives use the same tone outside abortion clinics. Even more radical believers choose to picket servicemen’s funerals to make ugly statements about the Gay community.
When Sara Palin put targets on a map she was engaging in swagger and tough talk. Perhaps she was trying to prove she could be as hard-hitting as Hillary Clinton was during her campaign. It’s like Barry Goldwater repeating, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” It didn’t work then and it is even more meaningless now. It’s bluster—and it’s why people call politicians windbags.
If Palin felt her crosshair symbols weren’t connected to potential violence, why did she take them down? Her comment, “When we say we need to take up arms” it means “to get out the vote,” was so laughably self serving that you have to admire her chutzpah The aggression expressed in Palin’s words is clear and undeniable. She never imagined anyone would be impolite enough to suggest her intent was less than honorable. She doesn’t seem to realize that Americans respect toughness, but we are suspicious of politicians that use the language of anger. Remember Joe McCarthy?
The real issue is Palin’s lack of consideration after Congresswoman Giffords commented that those targets might have consequences. Palin chose to neither respond nor change the target images, and only removed them after Gabrielle Giffords was actually shot. Why? Is Palin going to use targets again during the next election cycle? Is she going to keep exhorting people to “reload?”
The reality is that gun talk and gun imaging in politics is crude and careless. It is as silly as calling your opponent a socialist, fascist, or a secret foreign-born anti-American Muslim who may be the anti-Christ.
It’s true, we have a population of crazies and criminals among us, and we must be vigilant to protect the innocent from these monsters who sometimes hear voices inside their heads telling them to do monstrous things. Things like buying weapons with large ammo clips that allow them to kill 6 people in less time than it takes to unwrap a candy bar.
It’s also true that some people use the rude and careless talk of media mavens to rationalize their own violence or threats of violence. After all, if a rich and articulate politician or a clever talk show host says things like we need to “take out” an opponent, it is not too hard to imagine a cruder, less articulate and truly violent version from the minions who idolize them.
This abuse of emotion in public dialogue becomes an excuse to ignore the real issues that affect us all. It is much easier to get re-elected when you portray yourself as the heroic last defense against the relentless enemy of the culture you claim as the only moral lifestyle.
Sadly, we continue to elect politicians who know how to confuse us with a shell game. A shell game that allows them to abdicate their responsibility to actually govern, create policy or legislate for the greater good. Their shell game hides the fact that they are primarily interested in ensuring re-election by protecting their power base. Why? Because politicos know that actually dealing with the challenges is dangerous. It might mean telling the truth. It might mean raising some taxes, or controlling some guns, or finding a solution to America’s healthcare crisis. It might mean actually negotiating and compromising.
The majority of Americans want compromise and co-operation, and we are all sick of the game that has dominated the debate. It led us to two wasteful wars and a financial disaster. Thousands are now unemployed and thousands are losing their homes. Exploiting these very real, very pressing problems in order to capitalize on anger at the ballot box or the Neilsen box is blatant manipulation. We deserve better.
Since the Tucson shooting many politicians have hidden from media, because they don’t want to answer any questions about the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Even Dick Cheney says that might now need attention. Really? Would the right wing now honor a new referendum on such an issue? If the majority of Americans do want more restrictions on some weapons and more taxes to support our schools, will the current crop of legislators ever respond to them? We know the politicians listen to the lobbyists and power brokers who line pockets and fill their re-election coffers. It is time they started to listen, to really listen, to the American People.
