Shooting of Congresswoman in Tucson

[vison]

Back to serious.

On another forum someone quoted from an article by David Frum. Hardly a flaming leftist, Mr. Frum.

Here is part of what he had to say:

What does do damage to the fabric of democracy is the charge made by prominent conservative broadcasters that the president is deliberately wrecking the U.S. economy to advance his scheme to overthrow the constitution and transform the nation into a Marxist or Leninist or even Maoist tyranny.

[Hachimitsu]

I wanted to post some of my feelings on this. Although I do not think Loughner was directly influenced by Ms. Palin and her map I think the political atmosphere really didn't help. The man was clearly mentally ill and he should not have been allowed to have a gun, and someone seriously dropped the ball on getting him treatment. (His parents were told they son was kicked out of school for fears he was mentally unwell and would hurt the students, and he lives with his parents).

But overall the atmosphere is awful we all know the whole gun imgery and "reload" is a metaphor but some people don't. Especially with the gun culture of the US. Also some pundits like ratings and say stupid things. Like when Obama won the election, some idiot radio pundit said there was going to be a bloodbath. WTH? Where the heck did that come from? To me it said the pundit was extremely afraid of a black man in power and he wanted to incite something. I did notice McCain was extremely responsible in his concession speech and did say Obama was his president, because he proabably knew more then anyone else, that there are nutters out there who would like to "solve" their political frustrations with guns.

While the far right has been highlighted (which I do think is fair since they were the loudest), the left has said some incitable things too. No one says, they "don't mean it literally" unless being called out. I think now many cmmentators on both the left and right have to say they don't mean it literally.

(The example I was thinking of was a political podcast I listen to, where one commentator said he was angry at the US banking sector and he hoped the public would pick up pitchforks and show the government how angry they were. I know he meant it as a metaphor for how angry he was at bankers for wrecking the economy. But maybe some didn't. When he was mentioned on Fox News for saying that, he did on a later podcast clarify what he meant.)

[Infidel]

In related news one of the shooting victims is arrested for making threats:

When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, "You're dead."
...

A Pima County Sheriff's spokesman told KGUN9 News that they charged Fuller with one count of threats and intimidation, and said they plan to charge him with at least one count of disorderly conduct. Humphries told KGUN9 News that he does plan to press those charges.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13849741

[Hachimitsu]

I can see why the victim issued the threat since being a recent victim of gun violence himself, I am sure he didn't want to see the event blow over and it then becomes even easier to get guns. Should the man have said that? No but I can understand his emotional indignation and frustration.

EDIT: fixed spelling

[River]

I wanted to post some of my feelings on this. Although I do not think Loughner was directly influenced by Ms. Palin and her map I think the political atmosphere really didn't help. The man was clearly mentally ill and he should not have been allowed to have a gun, and someone seriously dropped the ball on getting him treatment. (His parents were told they son was kicked out of school for fears he was mentally unwell and would hurt the students, and he lives with his parents).

There is very little that can be done to get an unwilling adult into treatment for mental illness. Either the patient has to be so sick that they're the subject of a 911 call or you need a court order. In addition, before the court order can be obtained, the family needs to have the will and know-how to first confront the sickness and then do what must be done. This is not an easy process - a mental illness is as frightening and overwhelming for friends and family as it is for a patient. It's very tempting to put a pile of blame on the parents, but none of us know what it was like to actually live with the guy.

[nerdanel]

This is a very subtle example of the sort of thing that concerns me.

The NYT put together this very interesting profile of Loughner. The profile lists, at various points, Loughner's "influences" - which come from throughout the political spectrum. However, the piece twice notes specifically that Loughner was influenced, "for example," by the ideas of "extremist right-wing groups." It's a fairly subtle way to plant the association between "Loughner" and "right-wing" in the reader's mind. This technique is made even more frustrating by the concession in another article that "the murder suspect appeared to have no obvious ideology, his crime an imperfect parable for the consequences of political rhetoric."

So if Loughner lacked an obvious ideology, the appropriate way to report his influences would be to state that he may have been influenced by "extremists." To underscore "right-wing" rather than "extremist" seems unnecessary and disappointing in this case, and is one of the thousand cuts that seems likely to drive a far deeper wedge between left and right in the wake of this tragedy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Exactly.

[axordil]

I came away with a different sense from that profile: that Loughner's struggle with reality manifested itself as anti-authoritarianism. In another time (say, the 30s or 60s) he might well have ended up being interpreted within the dominant anti-authoritarian tropes in circulation, which were leftist (militant communism, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the hippie dropouts, et al).

In our time, however, the dominant anti-authoritarian tropes are rightist: sovereign citizenship, anti-fiat currency, inchoate right-libertarianism, "Christian" dominionism. But there's other stuff at work too: Loughner had a strong misognynist streak, evidently, which may well have contributed to his selection of target.

Is it possible for an act of political violence--as a premeditated attack on a politician at a political function must surely be--to have apolitical roots? I think so. But I also think there are no easy answers. No one made him pull the trigger, but the resonance of his act with the inflammatory rhetoric out there can't simply be dismissed as pure coincidence either.

[Cerin]

The NYT put together this very interesting profile of Loughner. The profile lists, at various points, Loughner's "influences" - which come from throughout the political spectrum. However, the piece twice notes specifically that Loughner was influenced, "for example," by the ideas of "extremist right-wing groups." It's a fairly subtle way to plant the association between "Loughner" and "right-wing" in the reader's mind. This technique is made even more frustrating by the concession in another article that "the murder suspect appeared to have no obvious ideology, his crime an imperfect parable for the consequences of political rhetoric."

I'm not quite sure I understand your perspective. If the first writer is accurate, and there were several right-wing influences in the hodge-podge mix of Loughner's, I'll say mind-set, isn't it important to report that, if we're interested in the truth? Are you suggesting that truth should be avoided for the sake of an idea of neutrality that you believe should be elevated for the sake of not irritating people? What if the first framing is more accurate than the one simply summarizing no obvious ideology? Perhaps there is no obvious coherent ideology, but the mix is clearly influenced by several right wing offshoots (as I think fits with what axordil was saying)? Should the more accurate representation be forfeited for a falsely neutral one because we judge the more falsely neutral picture to be less potentially 'cutting' to one side? Do you think you might have automatically accepted the second framing as more accurate because you find it more desirable? I notice that you seem to have assumed a hidden agenda on the part of the first writer (forgive me if I'm mistaken there; you said 'it's a subtle way to plant', which indicates intent to deceive or influence, to me. *You also seem to have assumed that the use of the phrase must be a deliberate technique chosen to influence, rather than simply being the writer's sincere choice to most concisely and accurate convey his meaning.) Do you think if it's true that Loughner was influenced by various extremist right-wing groups, it should not be said? If you think it should not be said, is that because you think the value of the truth is outweighed by some other interest? If so, what would that interest be?

Please pardon me if I seem to have made leaps of thought that 'cut' in any way. My questions are sincere.

* edit to add asterisked sentence

[nerdanel]

I'm not quite sure I understand your perspective. If the first writer is accurate, and there were several right-wing influences in the hodge-podge mix of Loughner's, I'll say mind-set, isn't it important to report that, if we're interested in the truth? Are you suggesting that truth should be avoided for the sake of an idea of neutrality that you believe should be elevated for the sake of not irritating people? What if the first framing is more accurate than the one simply summarizing no obvious ideology? Perhaps there is no obvious coherent ideology, but the mix is clearly influenced by several right wing offshoots (as I think fits with what axordil was saying)? Should the more accurate representation be forfeited for a falsely neutral one because we judge the more falsely neutral picture to be less potentially 'cutting' to one side? Do you think you might have automatically accepted the second framing as more accurate because you find it more desirable? I notice that you seem to have assumed a hidden agenda on the part of the first writer (forgive me if I'm mistaken there; you said 'it's a subtle way to plant', which indicates intent to deceive or influence, to me. *You also seem to have assumed that the use of the phrase must be a deliberate technique chosen to influence, rather than simply being the writer's sincere choice to most concisely and accurate convey his meaning.) Do you think if it's true that Loughner was influenced by various extremist right-wing groups, it should not be said? If you think it should not be said, is that because you think the value of the truth is outweighed by some other interest? If so, what would that interest be?

Please pardon me if I seem to have made leaps of thought that 'cut' in any way. My questions are sincere.

* edit to add asterisked sentence

Cerin - speaking as someone who is interested in the truth, I think it seems odd at best to underscore specifically the extreme right-wing influences on someone who listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite works; subscribed to 9/11 conspiracy theories that have attracted some on the far left; was strongly opposed to our last conservative President; and who is described as being profoundly mentally ill (probably the dominant factor in his behavior). What I'm trying to say is that the first framing is not more accurate.

It has nothing to do with an interest in neutrality, false or otherwise. If I felt that it was intellectually honest to blame Loughner's behavior unilaterally on the right-wing's views, I would do so. As we have posted together for years now, you must surely know that I don't refrain from expressing difficult opinions because they might irritate people, nor do I avoid views that right-wingers might find "cutting." I am generally partisan, I wish to see this country move in a socially liberal direction, and I will not hesitate to blame my ideological opponents for harms that I can honestly say they caused or catalyzed.

However, for me, intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that this person was clearly disturbed. To the extent he was influenced by external writings and voices, those came from the left, the right, and non-partisan sources. The article's underscoring of only the "extreme right-wing" influences (as such) thus struck me as unhelpful.

[Cerin]

Thank you for clarifying, nerdanel. It wasn't clear to me from what you'd written before, that your concerns about the phrase and the way the author used it were based on your assessment of their accuracy. I thought you might be suggesting that use of the term was suspect in itself (because of being prejudicial in the current atmosphere) and cast doubt on the motives of the writer.

you must surely know that I don't refrain from expressing difficult opinions because they might irritate people, nor do I avoid views that right-wingers might find "cutting."

Yes, I do know that. I think my reaction to your post is entirely due to my own current preoccupation with certain issues; it doesn't reflect any sort of doubt about your character.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In related news one of the shooting victims is arrested for making threats:

When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, "You're dead."
...

A Pima County Sheriff's spokesman told KGUN9 News that they charged Fuller with one count of threats and intimidation, and said they plan to charge him with at least one count of disorderly conduct. Humphries told KGUN9 News that he does plan to press those charges.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13849741

This followed his appearance on the popular left-wing, anti-authority TV/radio show Democrarcy Now in which he and the shows hosts, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, were blaming the tea party and figures like Palin and Angle for the shootings. Does that mean that I think that Goodman and Gonzales are to blame for Fuller's threats of violence. No, of course not. But they certainly contributed to his state of mind.

Fuller has now been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.

[axordil]

This followed his appearance on the popular left-wing, anti-authority TV/radio show Democrarcy Now

Popular in comparison to the Bolivian Cockroach Races on ESPN 4, maybe. Not in comparison to Fox, or Clear Channel.

[Cerin]

Anti-authority? They're against the principle of authority? Is that the same as anti-government?

[Holbytla]

The cockroaches have it all over us in so many ways.
The more I hear about what is and what should be by authorities, the more I side with the cockroaches.

Did you know I am no longer able to add two spaces after my sentences because of the powers that be?

Authoritarianism anything makes me so crazy I just wanna spit, even if I want to side with people against it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This followed his appearance on the popular left-wing, anti-authority TV/radio show Democrarcy Now

Popular in comparison to the Bolivian Cockroach Races on ESPN 4, maybe. Not in comparison to Fox, or Clear Channel.

Around here, I would say Democracy Now is a lot more popular than Fox.

Needless to say, though, it is true that Fox is much more popular nationally, and that they are also more popular than their liberal equivalent, MSNBC. Still there are plenty of indications that there are significant pockets of liberal manifestations of the anti-authoritarian tropes nowadays; indeed I think that is a major reason why much of the "professional left" has largely turned against President Obama. And while the contributions to the creation of the toxic and potentially violent political atmosphere from the right are often far more blatant and unsubtle (and perhaps more numerous) than those from the left, that doesn't give the left a free pass. I have never been reluctant to point out and condemn right-wing idiocy (though I rarely need to do so here, since a dozen or two other people are likely to jump in and do so before me), but since I myself tend to lean to the left (some times far further to the left than mainstream liberalism), I feel a greater urgency in addressing what I see as dangerous tendencies on that side of the aisle.

Despite the fact that it appears unlikely that these shootings were incited by any of the rhetoric that has been generated, including Ms. Palin's crosshair imagery, when we look at the fact that that imagery was used, that Rep. Giffords herself suggested that it was a potentially dangerous thing to do, and then she herself was targeted and gravely wounded, it makes perfect sense to talk about the crosshair imagery, as well as some of the other specific violent rhetoric that has been used, including Ms. Angle's "second amendment remedies" statement, and Rep. Gifford's opponents M-18 campaign event. I have no problem with that whatsoever. It is a question of how these things get talked about. To the extent that it has been used as a convenient excuse by people on the left to demonize people on the right (and I think it has been used to do that to a great extent), I think that people on the left have only served to add to the very problem that they claim to be calling out. It may not be as blatant and unsubtle as some of the things that we have seen from the right, but that doesn't make less of a concern.

[Primula Baggins]

I've, er, never heard of Democracy Now.

I'm not even sure I've ever heard of the hosts; those are both pretty common names and ring no particular bells. No doubt someone will draw a connection and I'll be terribly embarrassed, but at this point, I'm drawing a complete blank.

And I am no spring hippie.

[Dave_LF]

I just wanted to step in quickly and contradict the claim that "9-11 Truth" is a left-wing cause. I was on messageboards where those theories were discussed ad nauseum five or so years ago. Most of the adherents were pretty much like Laughner minus the clinical insanity--paranoid, anti-authority, anti-religion, anti-Semitic, anti-currency, pro-gold believers of just about any conspiracy you could dream up (as long as it implicated the "powers that be").

[nerdanel]

I just wanted to step in quickly and contradict the claim that "9-11 Truth" is a left-wing cause. I was on messageboards where those theories were discussed ad nauseum five or so years ago. Most of the adherents were pretty much like Laughner minus the clinical insanity--paranoid, anti-authority, anti-religion, anti-Semitic, anti-currency, pro-gold believers of just about any conspiracy you could dream up (as long as it implicated the "powers that be").

From what I can tell of the "Truthers," some identify with the left, some with the right, and some not at all. I didn't make the claim that 9/11 conspiracy theory is solely the province of the left. I said that those theories "have attracted some on the far left," and I stand by that claim (for instance, some left-wing conspiracy theorists viewed 9/11 as a Republican ploy to advance conservative foreign policy and national security objectives, including objectives that encroach on civil liberties and human rights). In any event, we are in agreement on the larger point: that Laughner and those like him hold a range of paranoid beliefs that aren't solely left-wing or right-wing.

[axordil]

V-man--

I agree about "the professional Left" and the President--if you mean, and I believe you do, liberal pundits as opposed to professionals who are liberal. I'm not sure how many of those I would view as anti-authoritarian, or specifically anti-Government. Quite a few are sour on corporations, and on corporate control of the government as they perceive it, but not on the concept of a strong Federal government per se. Most of the "pro Left" wanted (and still does) a single payer solution for health care, for example: a pro-government, anti-corporate stance.

If you get all the way out to left-libertarian/anarchist land, on the fringe, that's a different question. But those are few and far between in the blogosphere, invisible in media, and only seen when there's a Starbucks window to be smashed in at a protest.

I fully agree about not giving the left a free pass. The agent provacateurs (whoever they are) who get medieval at the big protests are an embarrassment, as are the animal rights fringe. But they have very narrow targets, and their activities are parochial. There's not a lot of angry prime time rhetoric out there about freeing lab animals.