This post is cross-posted at Dean2016.com.
The senseless shooting of a Congresswoman and her constituents this past weekend by a mentally deranged individual is proof that a poisonous political atmosphere only serves to drive us apart in the face of tragedies that by all rights really should bring us together. The attacks of 9-11 united us, albeit briefly – but I suspect that if another successful terror plot on that scale were to occur today, we wouldn’t have even that brief window of national unity and resolve.
The conservative complaint that liberals have seized upon the shooting to affirm their policy preferences – gun control, scalp hunting on 2012 contenders, even single-payer health care – is certainly valid to an extent. But conservatives remain stubbornly blind to the merit in the liberal argument that the tone of the extremist (not mainstream) right wing matters. The United States is not yet at a point where the venomous rhetoric translates directly into violence, but the paradox of the modern era is that as technology and liberty increase, so too does the power of the lone, crazed individual. This is the burden of our time, to understand that words have more consequences today than ever before in history.
As President Clinton wrote last April, on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombings,
Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. No one is right all the time. But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.
We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.
Thus far, conservatives have reacted in a defensive crouch, pointing out correctly that there is no evidence that right-wing rhetoric directly contributed to Mr. Loughman’s mental state or motivations. But in dismissing any evidentiary link, they make the mistake of denying that any speech could have any consequences. The liberal impulse to pile on surely is not fostering a mindset of introspection necessary if conservatives are ever to police their own.
As I said, the United States does not yet have the problem that countries like Pakistan – also nominally a democracy – have with political violence. The murder of Salman Taseer is only the latest example. The shooting in Arizona is best seen as a reality check, an opportunity for a course correction. Unfortunately the very political divisions that rend us make it unlikely we will be able to exploit this opportunity as we should, and must.
The right response to these kinds of tragedies is to recognize that we must temper our instincts for political gain. This is a lesson both the left and the right have failed to learn.
POSTSCRIPT: The Arizona DHS has concluded that Loughner was likely not influenced by an extremist group. Also, a CBS poll indicates most Americans don’t believe the shooting was motivated by political rhetoric, either.