Vitriol

It's been fascinating following the media coverage of the shooting in Tucson Saturday that killed six and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Of course, I feel sick about the whole thing, but as I watched coverage in between plays of the football playoffs I couldn't help but be drawn in to the cable news outfits' attempts to wonder what it all means.

The main theme seems to be the disintegrating civility of discourse among those who politically disagree. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik set the tone with an off-the-cuff diatribe during his press conference, in which he blasted radio and TV pundits for ratcheting up the hatred, and called Arizona "the capital, the Mecca of bigotry and prejudice." I applaud his comments, but two days later I wonder whether his words, though basically true, were beside the point.

As of this moment, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, isn't talking. His past has been pored over, and he's been labeled as left-wing and right-wing, a pothead, and a fan of Jimi Hendrix. His YouTube videos indicate a disturbed mind, as he has an obsession with literacy, mind control, and the gold standard. His list of favorite books includes Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, which seems to indicate that he is either a general fan of anti-authority figures, or just likes to view all sides. He has not, though, been concretely associated with any political group.

I'm sure that Tea Party leaders had their hearts in their throats while they were checking membership rosters, hoping not to find his name, and they didn't. Loughner may be insane, answering to voices in his own head. But if this incident has anything good come out of it, I would welcome the national conversation on the use of violent metaphors in political speech.

We've heard all the examples. Sharron Angle calling for "Second Amendment remedies," which can mean only one thing, really. Sarah Palin's Website using crosshaired gun sights on a map of vulnerable Congressional districts, or her use of the word "reload." Michele Bachmann, calling her political movement "armed and dangerous," or newly-elected Allen West, saying he wanted to make it so his opponent would be afraid to come out of his own house. Conservative commenters are quick to point out that Democrats use the same language, but can there be any doubt that this sort of imagery is predominately used by the right? Democrats are not the party of those obsessed with guns.

I've noticed that when asked to comment, Republicans and conservatives are trying to reinforce Loughner as a garden-variety lunatic, and they might be right. But this climate of hatred, when a vote on healthcare reform earns death threats, is intolerable. Conservative leaders, whether they be Palin or Glenn Beck, who promotes books by John Birchers, have to think before they speak, and vet their rhetoric by imagining the craziest of their listeners taking their words literally. I realize that people like Beck do this to make themselves more entertaining and continue to rake in their millions, but, as Spider-Man was told, "with great power comes great responsibility."

I should add that the vitriolic rhetoric of today's political scene overshadowed the issue that really should have number one: Loughner bought a gun that, during the Clinton administration, was illegal. The law banning it expired, and Congress, too afraid of the NRA, did not extend it. He bought it at a gun show. Loughner was also kicked out of his community college, told not to return without a mental evaluation. Why a man who was deemed too dangerous for community college should be allowed to buy a killing machine is the question we should all be asking.