POLITICS JANUARY 9, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Perhaps the stupidest and least surprising comment about the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson came from New York Times columnist Matt Bai. Bai, the author of an interesting book about Democratic politics, analyzed the political environment—the universe of discourse that framed the alleged attempt at assassination by Arizonan Jared Lee Loughner. Here is what he wrote:
Within minutes of the first reports Saturday that Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and a score of people with her had been shot in Tucson, pages began disappearing from the Web. One was Sarah Palin’s infamous “cross hairs” map from last year, which showed a series of contested Congressional districts, including Ms. Giffords’s, with gun targets trained on them. Another was from Daily Kos, the liberal blog, where one of the congresswoman’s apparently liberal constituents declared her “dead to me” after Ms. Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi in House leadership elections last week.
The implication is that Giffords’s assassination arose in the context of both right-wing and left-wing attacks on her, and that the onus of changing the political rhetoric of violence falls equally on the right and the left.
Now, it may turn out that Loughner was inspired by some nutty far-left blog that advocated killing Democratic Blue Dogs, of which Giffords was one. But if you look broadly at today’s political discourse, as Bai purports to do, what you find is that gun, warrior, murder, mayhem, and generally Armageddon-like, apocalyptic rhetoric is virtually monopolized by right-wing organizations, talk-show hosts, and politicians. That is not saying that the right always monopolizes the rhetoric of violence. Certainly it has in the South, but in different eras, the left rather than the right has had the franchise in the far west and the north. Think, for instance, of the late ‘60s. But in the last two years, there is no contest.
Bai’s examples are ridiculous. Palin’s crosshairs, aimed at Giffords’s district, certainly conjure up a rifle or bomb sight. But the metaphor on Daily Kos—that Giffords after a vote is “dead to me”—is straight out of family wills. It is what a parent says to a prodigal child. The metaphor has nothing to do with killing.
I spent some time in Giffords’s district in Tucson in the fall of 2005. For two decades, it had been represented by moderate Republican Jim Kolbe, who was pro-immigrant and allied with Senator John McCain. The district is about one-fifth Hispanic. It includes many of the professionals from the University of Arizona, but also white middle-class East Tucson, and largely rural Cochise County, which borders Mexico. In 2004, right-wing anti-immigrant activist Randy Graf challenged Kolbe and got 43 percent of the primary vote. (I use anti-immigrant advisedly. What I found in Arizona is that among the activists, opposition to illegal immigration shades into opposition to Mexican and Central American immigrants.)
Graf had been a leader on Arizona’s Proposition 200, which, among other things, made it more difficult for the state’s Hispanics to vote. At the time I interviewed him, he was getting ready to claim Kolbe’s seat in the 2006 elections. He struck me as a standard-issue, right-wing conspiratorial nut. He blamed Kolbe’s lenient views of immigration on his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (which he referred cryptically as the “CFR.”) Giffords defeated Graf by 54 to 42 percent. Graf’s share of the vote indicated the scope of hard-core anti-immigration sentiment in the district.
I visited the district last spring and went to a town-hall meeting held by former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who was running for Senate against McCain. Various kooky subjects got aired, including a supposed FDA war on vitamins, but the meeting basically focused on the threat of illegal immigrants flooding Arizona—at a time when illegal immigration was down drastically because of the recession. In last fall’s election, Giffords’s opponent, Tea Party candidate Jesse Kelly, focused on illegal immigration and almost defeated Giffords.
Arizona’s preoccupation with illegal immigration, and its other right-wing enthusiasms, were tempered in the past by Arizona’s business leaders and by a group of Arizona Democrats and moderate Republicans, often led by McCain. In the late ‘80s, when Republican Governor Evan Meacham cancelled the state’s celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, the same group of politicians and business leaders intervened. And while she was governor, Democrat Janet Napolitano kept the right’s passions somewhat in check.
But last year, the nuts gained control of the asylum, and McCain himself resigned his position as supervisor to join the inmates in yelling and screaming about big government, Mexification, and whatever other thing popped into their brains. McCain campaigned with Giffords’s opponent Kelly, who besides focusing on the immigrant threat, also wanted to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Given the absence of adult supervision, Arizona has become a haven for the radical right.
We still don’t know what motivated Giffords’s alleged assassin, Loughner. But if his act does turn out to have been shaped by a dominant political environment, it was not that of the left. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik summed it up: “The bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said yesterday. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic.
15 comments
Good comment. Bai's suggestion of equivalence is an expression of the mindless press orthodoxy that when it comes to every bad thing, both sides are equally guilty, rather than any objective, rational assessment of the facts. Here's how they write stories: One side does something bad. In order to be balanced -- which is *not* the same as objectivity -- they hunt around for an example from the other side. In some cases, that example will have weight, and it will be a good point and add perspective. In many cases, however -- like this one -- the example is not in the same ballpark at all and simply distorts reality in the service of an appearance -- but not the reality -- of objectivity. And yet, whether we should be talking about Tea Party rhetoric at all in this context, when there's no indication that the shooter was in any sense a Tea Party sort, is a legitimate one. We don't know that this guy was angry at Giffords for anything like the reasons that her district was under Palin's crosshairs. We don't know that he was inspired or angered or egged on by Tea Party vitriol at all. From what I've read, we know that some babbling about the Fed was among his incoherent ravings that were not otherwise identifiable as consistent with anyone's political agenda, no matter how nasty. (Does that mean that Ron Paul, for example, should cease his eccentric calls for abolishing the Fed? Of course not.) There's even a little bit of evidence that he might have been more of a radical left sort than a radical right sort, although most evidence points to total incoherence, even by Tea Party standards, and bona fide mental illness. We're not talking Timothy McVeigh here. The standard line is, well sure, we don't *know*, but surely we can use the occasion to reflect on nasty rhetoric in politics. But is the occasion properly used in that way? If it actually has nothing or very, very little to do with right-wing rhetoric, then I would say it's not. I hate Sarah Palin and I hate the Tea Party. But, no, it's not fair to *associate* them with these murders unless we have a good idea that their rhetoric and rhetoric like it had something to do with them. If they didn't, we might as well use a gangland shooting or any unrelated tragedy to reflect upon political rhetoric. The refrain is, "Words have consequences." But were *these* the consequences of *those* words? That's really the central question. I'm not convinced yet, even taking an expansive view of cause and effect that would charge Tea Partiers and company with tamping down the apocalyptic, violent, overheated rhetoric in their ranks lest they contribute to a general atmosphere of high-pitched anger at politicians and others on the other side of a political divide. Perhaps we should have the familiar discussion we have in the wake of school shootings. As in, how does this mentally disturbed person fall through the cracks? How does he get a gun? Because, so far, this seems more akin to a school shooting than political terrorism. I think we should be precise in the way we talk about it and think about it. I'm sure we'll learn a great deal more about this guy's motivations, and continue to argue about them in the coming months. In the meantime, we shouldn't be so quick to fit this tragedy into the narratives we like the sound of -- a round peg into a square hole. We should be guided, instead, by an open-minded look at reality. Imprecise, tainted public debates, led by negligent media forces, is how we went to war in Iraq and how so many could associate Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Is it plausible that Tea Party rhetoric *could* contribute to right-wing terrorism? Sure. But that was true before this rampage. Should we all "watch what we say" now, lest we inspire fanatics? If we should, we should have all along, but I'm not sure that that's a reasonable standard to apply -- avoiding inspiring fanatics to violence. I don't think that Bai's implied equivalence is accurate, but I wouldn't be comfortable conducting our politics and public debates by that standard. Public debates are about persuasion, and the negative side of an argument -- why the other fellow is wrong -- will often involve dire warnings and use strong language and imagery. That must be allowed. The don't-inspire-fanatics standard would, I think, be too constraining.
- JakeH
January 10, 2011 at 2:08am
Not that I wish to compare politics to football, but even the NFL has a penalty for "unsportsmanlike conduct." Key definition, from NFL.com, here, =================================== It is important to note that the unsportsmanlike conduct rules apply to all personnel in the team area, including players, coaches, team employees, and officials. Lack of respect or other unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated during games or at other times, including postgame interviews. This includes abusive, threatening, insulting, or profane language or gestures, and physical acts by coaches, players, and other club personnel directed at opponents, officials, game personnel, or fans. =================================== Then again, the House and the Senate have similar rules (you can look them up). As I recall, among other things, the rules stemmed in part from a desire to eliminate grounds for dueling. Dan
- dbuck1
January 10, 2011 at 9:01am
I don't think Matt Bai's comments are stupid in the least. The extreme ends of the political spectrum are absolute mirror images of each other. What rang most true to me was a comment in the middle of Bai's article, when he noted the "constant intimations" made, way back when, about George W Bush. I used to cringe at the savageness of remarks I'd read and hear daily in the media when Bush was president, since most of it wasn't level-headed or even fierce yet honest criticism; most of it was sheer mob mentality thinking and over-the-topness. I cringe today when I hear and read equally distorted comments made about President Obama, too. You are trying too hard to rationalize that there's a difference. There isn't.
- kaybee
January 10, 2011 at 10:38am
I gasped when I heard that Loughner's weapon was a Glock 9mm. It is a revolver specifically designed and used only as an anti-personnel weapon. Marines carry such weapons in the field, and combat Army soldiers use a similar type revolver from another manufacturer. Police force officers may use a similar gun. It is *not* designed nor is it appropriate for any other purpose than to kill as quickly, effectively, and efficiently, one or more targets. Why bloody hell does the law anywhere allow such a weapon to be carried, visibly or, in Loughner's case, concealed as Arizona law allows? What do Arizonans think about someone(s) walking around with a concealed 9mm pistol? It's absolutely insane, and criminally irresponsible besides, imo.
- Tgossard
January 10, 2011 at 10:59am
One of the worst things about the mainstream press is that because they care much more about LOOKING balanced than conveying important truths in a non-misleading way, they act as if any two things are equal as long as both aren't zero; the ilmath and illogic can be stunning. The Republican plans could increase the deficit by $3 trillion, the Democrats by $50 billion, and the article would be written like both parties are equally at fault, especially the headline.
- RHSerlin
January 10, 2011 at 11:02am
If you can stand to do so, google glock 9mm for an actual size photo. It is huge (though less so than some, such as a 45mm Smith and Wesson, which is gigantic!
- Tgossard
January 10, 2011 at 11:02am
Thank you for this piece John - the moral relativism of the Broderites on this are doing violence to the truth. Sometimes a spade is a spade. The violence that caused this event was created by the right wing hate culture in Arizona, which is only a concentrated shot of the larger right wing hate culture in this country. Period. RHSerlin nails it too. Our own normally brilliant Jon Chait fell victim to this knee-jerk desire to appear oh so balanced and objective, and in a very rare scene - looked ridiculous.
- WandreyCer
January 10, 2011 at 1:04pm
"The violence that caused this event was created by the right wing hate culture in Arizona, which is only a concentrated shot of the larger right wing hate culture in this country. Period." Dammit, Wandrey, you're just saying that! What do you have to back that up? Any links between this guy and the culture you deplore? None have emerged! It looks like your assessment is mere assumption, followed by angry assertion.
- JakeH
January 10, 2011 at 2:23pm
Kaybee I agree that there was plenty of over the top rhetoric about Bush, but I don't remember anyone ever calling for violence against him. Michael Moore never made a movie where there was a cross-hair on Bush's face. To say the "fringes" are mirror images of each other may be comforting but an abortion doctor in Kansas, an IRS employee in Austin, and several officers around the country know that there is one particular fringe on the political spectrum whose rhetoric produces violence consistently.
- Pnaut
January 10, 2011 at 2:27pm
“The bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said yesterday. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” Now lets not get ahead of ourselves here. Arizona can be an unfriendly place for many people, but I would hesitate to take the title of "Most Bigoted State" away from Texas.
- mdichner
January 10, 2011 at 2:46pm
I agree with you, JakeH. As yet we have no details that even suggest what Loughner's motives were for shooting Congresswoman Giffords and the other people who died or were injured. It's a terrible tragedy that has occurred and also a mystery why it occurred. I do think the incident qualifies as an act of domestic terrorism, because it has profoundly affected our political process. Loughner may not be an enemy of the U.S., but citizens and their representatives, judges, and neighbors, now have greater cause to be fearful and cautious about actively participating in our American political process. Another wake-up call, whether it turns out the shooting was politically motivated or not. Politics has become a more dangerous game to play. Again.
- Tgossard
January 10, 2011 at 3:05pm
Probably true JakeH, fair enough. That was a hysterical post. But you can also go too far in ignoring the forest for the trees here. Everything the Sheriff said about Arizone is true and there is no question that it helps create a hostile, potentially dangerous environment. I'd like to add that the mere fact of fetishizing violent human killing machines like Glocks (as right wingers do), and making them as available as toilet paper (ditto) creates a dangerous ennvironment for anyone to live in. I'm not going to nitpick a larger point staring me in the face.
- WandreyCer
January 10, 2011 at 3:10pm
I was very upset—and disturbed—to see a "coming events" ad, put out by Giffords' opponent during the 2010 election campaign (which, as we know, Giffords won) that read: "Get on Target for Victory in November," with the accompanying description: "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Some on the right might not see anything out of the ordinary in the advertisement. I should hope everyone else would. It goes well beyond bad taste. It's irresponsible, and inflammatory. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a liar and deceives, in my book. Look and see what you think. http://gawker.com/5728545/shot-congresswoman-was-in-sarah-palins-crosshairs.
- Tgossard
January 10, 2011 at 3:49pm
As an Arizonan myself I sympathize with Sheriff Dupnik in lamenting some of the groups that seem to be at home here, but just the same I think it worth noting that this is the same state that ELECTED Gabrielle Giffords, and did so at a time when sentiment was strongest against doing so. Unfortunately we couldn't keep Mitchell too, but we also kept out Hayworth. Before Jan Brewer ascended to office by promotion due to Napolitano's exit to join the Obama administration, we elected Napolitano. Electing Democrats by itself is not proof that Arizona is "not bigoted", and electing Republicans does not make us bigoted, but whoever else finds a home here, it is home too to diverse, thoughtful and good people. If we can do something to make it more uncomfortable for the hate-mongers, count me in, but meanwhile, please show a little perspective and compassion.
- dcwood10
January 10, 2011 at 7:56pm
I know some great people from Arizona, Democrats - but they feel great concern and especially seemed to believe that McCain was far more right wing that people had thought. The choice of Palin as running mate seems to back them up on that score and recent events - Brewer's policies included - seem to reinforce the image that a lot of people in Arizona aren't so liberal. As a native of the Southwest - it's pretty apparent to me that racism is a problem, a big problem - not just toward Mexicans but toward Native Americans; and so is the gun culture. This is true in Texas too of course - the South in general - well - it isn't exactly New York. I don't think we've really healed the wounds of the Civil War, to this day. Maybe it's time we confronted this, realized that since Obama was elected in particular we've been seeing some reactionary politics and that they are dangerous. I don't think this is business as usual.
- Sophia
January 10, 2011 at 10:23pm