Tragedy And Rhetoric

10Jan/1119

Tragedy And Rhetoric

I've been slow to post on this, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I just haven't felt like posting much since Thursday. But today, I've been walking around without crutches most of the day (except for stairs), and I took the bandage off without incident. The hydrocodone has helped, although it's contributed to an excess of sleep. Speaking of hydrocodone, I'll be right back.

All better now.

Now, onto the topic at hand. I'm really getting tired of people whining about the political rhetoric, as if we can blame political speech for the horrific tragedy committed by a crazy lunatic in Tucson. I have to admit, one of my first thoughts (after the horror set in) was a fear for how this would affect political discourse; and particularly a fear of the blame that was bound to be attached to the right wing (she is, after all, a Democrat). I was preparing my stock response, "You can't blame what this guy did on political metaphors."

Knowing that he was actually upset with her for not being far left enough, my stock response is still appropriate. We cannot blame the actions of crazy people on the metaphorical turns of phrase expounded by those who may hold some sort of political similarities. We don't get to blame Obama for this guy, we don't to blame Algore for the nutcase at the Discovery Channel, we don't get to blame Limbaugh for Oklahoma City, and we don't get to blame Bill O'Reilly for the guy who shot the abortion doctor.

To do so would require some sort of legal standard to determine a number of things. We'd have to somehow quantify similarity of thought (unless you want to hold a leftwing nutjobs actions against a political antagonist) as well as correlation. Did this guy go crazy after reading Al Gore's book, after listening to Obama's speech, or maybe after reading Paul Krugman's column? I'm not smart enough to be able to think of a legal standard that wouldn't completely destroy free political speech as we know it.

Whether the rhetoric under discussion is something God will hold them accountable for is something different entirely. Personally, I think He will hold us accountable for our slanders, lies, and half-truths. He will hold us accountable for our exaggerations and intentional misquotes.

No matter how inappropriate the post-tragedy rhetoric (name your tragedy, there's been rhetoric to follow), or how vitriolic the pre-tragedy rhetoric, it's just not helpful to blame it for the tragedy.

Adam Wells

Living life at 84 mph and 7000 feet. All I ask is that you don't block traffic, act like a professional, and don't act all surprised when your actions have consequences. Oh, and don't complain about the refs; trust me, they don't care if your team wins or not.

Tagged as: arizona shooting, blame game, discourse, Political Theater, rhetoric Leave a comment

Comments (19) Trackbacks (2) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

BktBallRef
January 10th, 2011 - 23:31

Agreed. This is a mentally disturbed individual, who should be held accountable for his actions. And they were his actions, alone. Mentally disturbed, yes…insane, no. He is to blame, no one else.

How do we keep guns out of the hands of individuals like this? I don’t know the answer to that question. There may not be an answer. But the answer is not to take them out of the hands of competent, law abiding citizens. That’s the other debate that’s being spurred by this tragedy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- snaqwells
  January 10th, 2011 - 23:51
  
  Yeah, the gun control agenda always springs up from things like this; in spite of the fact that it’s obvious strict gun control wouldn’t have done anything.
  For this young man, I have seen questions raised about whether the sheriff had scrubbed his record. I think those are the things that need to be looked into.
  But then again, would that have stopped this? I doubt it.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
Bob Reed
January 10th, 2011 - 23:33

I’m guessing that all rap music would have to be banned also…

Or not, because of the culture and diversity …

Or maybe like Meep suggested, we can just ban insanity !

All of the politicizing rhetoric is scurrilous and reprehensible.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- snaqwells
  January 10th, 2011 - 23:52
  
  Can’t touch rap music, so we’ll go after Country Music instead.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Meep
    January 11th, 2011 - 08:46
    
    Can’t touch this!
    
    Dun dun dun dun….
    
    oh wait, that’s not really rap.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
Juulie Downs
January 11th, 2011 - 01:14

In general, I agree with you. But legally, politicizing rhetoric can still be held responsible sometimes. Not saying it’s so in this case, not at all. Just saying that rhetoric isn’t automatically free from being held accountable. We had a case here in Oregon a number of years ago where some kids beat a guy to death, and in the end the kids, AND THE LEADER OF THEIR MOVEMENT, were convicted. The leader had incited and encouraged the action, even though he’d never spoken to them personally, so the court determined.
Rhetoric definitely can affect the public climate, and should be carefully put forth. I doubt any one rhetoretician can be held responsible for the Arizona shooter’s actions, everyone who uses inflammatory rhetoric contributes to the climate that breeds so much violence into our society.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Meep
  January 11th, 2011 - 08:59
  
  One example comes to mind — Freddy’s Fashion Mart.
  
  But I don’t believe the guy involved in the incitement to violence was ever convicted on that.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
- snaqwells
  January 11th, 2011 - 11:32
  
  Juulie, you’re right in that they aren’t exempt; nor should they be. But the standard should be that the incitement has to be pretty direct in order to be culpable. When Obama says his supporters need to “fight” for health care, he shouldn’t be held responsible when some nutcase shoots a congressman who votes against it. When O’Reilly says an abortion doctor should be held criminally responsible for the lives he’s taken, he (O’Reilly) shouldn’t be held responsible when some nutcase goes off and shoots an abortion doctor.
  The extent to which they are morally culpable in these cases is even debatable. This sort of rhetoric isn’t new, no matter what the hand-wringers among us think.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Juulie Downs
    January 11th, 2011 - 12:30
    
    When Obama talks about “fighting” for what we believe in, or O’Reilly says people should be held accountable for something, that’s different from the kind of rhetoric people are “hand-wringing” about, imo. But there is other rhetoric around that is more extreme than that, which isn’t new, but is more public in the last ten years, and is less from the fringe, and is more in central view. And although I wish it wasn’t true, the vigilante nature of a lot of TV and movies these days also encourages a might-makes-right perspective. And none of that has anything to do with right-wing or left-wing. The fact that Sarah Palin said something that might be construed as violent is only the most recent example, and just happens to be right-wing. Plenty of left-wing people are plenty violent and plenty vocal about it.
    
    The only way to change this is to step back and listen carefully to those we most disagree with, and then listen carefully to what we think, and then stop to consider where we might be wrong, before we react to what our opponents say. To use good arguement techniques and problem-solving strategies, rather than resorting to inflammatory distractions from the facts of the matter. Doing things right, getting things right, should be more important than doing things my way, or getting things my way.
    
    But then we’d have to be mature, thinking adults, instead of 2nd-grade brawlers and that’s just no fun. And that’s both right-wing and left-wing.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - snaqwells
      January 11th, 2011 - 16:42
      
      If you’re referring to Palin’s “crosshairs” comment, that’s nothing. It’s a political analogy that’s been around as long as football players have talked about “going to battle.” Hardly worse than the following words, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Juulie Downs
      January 11th, 2011 - 20:52
      
      I’m just referring to that fact that others have referred to that statement by Palin.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Dede
January 11th, 2011 - 08:40

A) I’m glad your knee seems to be doing well..that’s awesome sauce.

2.) The shooter is crazy….I don’t think he meets the standard of “legally insane” but then, thankfully, I’m not a lawyer.

C.) I hope they flay this guy alive, burn him at the stake, then bring him back to life and shoot him the face….on pay per view.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- snaqwells
  January 11th, 2011 - 11:35
  
  A. Thanks.
  2. No idea, but I’m not philosophically opposed to executing the insane. It should be looked at in a case by case basis; and anyone who could put forth the planning required for this has a very high threshold for insanity, IMO.
  C. I’d settle for a midnight injection; he doesn’t need any more press.
  IV. I love that you mixed up the outline markers. :D
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Dede
    January 11th, 2011 - 21:51
    
    a) you’re welcome
    
    1a subsection q) If there is evidence of planning, then as far as I’m concerned all bets are off and he fries.
    
    XX. If we do it on pay per view…the money raised can be used to create a foundation in the names of those murdered …or buy a hotdog for everyone in Tucson whichever.
    
    4. I love that you loved it.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
jefferson101
January 11th, 2011 - 20:24

As I’ve noted in previous comments, there is a price that one pays for living in a free Country. Sadly, the occasional nutcase who slips through the cracks is one of them.

I’d rather be able to defend myself against them than have to wait for the Police to show up. (When seconds count, the Cops are minutes away!)

In this case, however, it would begin to seem that the Sheriff and his minions ignored all the warning signs, and now are throwing up a smoke screen to hide the obvious negligence on their part.

But that’s OK. They have immunity, and as long as they all go home safely every day, it really doesn’t matter what happens to anyone else. It’s not as if they were required to do anything to protect anyone, actually.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Juulie Downs
January 11th, 2011 - 16:10

It’s a good response to any shit regardless of who’s serving!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
January 11th, 2011 - 16:43

You know me well enough to know that I’m more likely to spit it out and politely tell you where you can stuff it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Juulie Downs
January 11th, 2011 - 20:55

Yea, I just meant that it isn’t only Democrats that try to serve that stuff. It’s pretty much a nasty meal on both ends of the spectrum.

And tangentially, that’s one of the things that seems so tragic to me about the Arizona shooting. Apparently Giffords was a pretty centrist, compromise, talk-it-out, work-together sort of person. We need more of those people around, not fewer.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
January 12th, 2011 - 16:38

It’s funny, because this sort of gets to the definition of shit in this context. Many of us view the recently passed HCR (“Obamacare”) as shit, while others would view its repeal the same way.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )