(NOTE: Please see Marley23’s closing admonishment in the “Second Amendment Solutions” thread. I’d prefer to keep this discussion on topic and avoid insults, so I’m posting it here instead of the BBQ Pit, but if the strong feelings at play corrupt our dialogue, I’ll ask the mods to close it instead of moving it. Thanks.)
In the discussions we’re having here and those I’ve seen other places on the web, there seems to be resistance to the idea that prominent right wing ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ (as Sherriff Dupnik has put it) is even marginally connected to Loughner’s actions. I’ll stay away from arguments about whether the rhetoric is equivalent on “both sides” and whether liberals like me “want" to blame this on conservatives but I’d like to discuss some of the arguments I’ve seen pushing back against criticism of the rhetoric relative to the Arizona shootings.
To me, it doesn’t seem a large leap to presume that such rhetoric will if relentlessly pushed by popular figures result in violence against representatives of the targeted group. But let’s look at the main arguments against my point of view, or specifically denying the Arizona killings as a valid example of the consequences that presumption warns against.
“The shooting spree wasn’t politically motivated.” Let’s put this one to bed right now; Loughner murdered a US judge and attempted to murder a US legislator. If he’d included a federal LEO he would’ve struck against all three branches of government. If as seems very likely the shooter selected his primary target Giffords based on his beliefs about her effect and influence on society as a whole rather than directly on him, this makes the attack an explicitly political action. It may have been motivated by delusional beliefs, which may have little resemblance to any mainstream ideology, but politics doesn’t evaporate outside of established party doctrine.
“Loughner isn’t right wing / his politics are indecipherable, therefore right wing rhetoric isn’t a factor.” I propose that the specifics of Loughner’s beliefs are only important to the degree that they are paranoid, violent and extreme. In fact, the apparent randomness of Loughner’s political ramblings makes it more likely that any particular target of apocalyptic rhetoric would present to Loughner as a threat to his own imagined universe. Crazies are quite capable of selecting your well illuminated boogey man as their own, and providing their idiosyncratic pretzel logic to justify that. Yes, they can also co-opt your discarded grass clippings into their delusional fears, but unless their paranoia has the same kind of specificity towards your lawn waste as your rhetoric does toward your object(s) of political hatred, IME they’re less likely to see it as a threat.
“You can’t prove the rhetoric motivated Loughner.” This would be a good argument against charging Sharron Angle or Sarah Palin with conspiracy in the murders. It’s not a good argument when used to counter condemnation of their rhetoric as a [non criminal] incitement to violence among extremists and lunatics. And this is really the core of the outrage. The rhetoric from the extreme American right over the past couple of decades has become increasingly eliminationist in tone and apocalyptic in content.
After years of conservative pundits and pols describing liberal political philosophy as immoral, its adherents as enemies and its elimination as necessary to the preservation of everything true patriots hold dear, I don’t find it a ridiculous notion that some individuals would be so influenced by this propaganda as to take action against those vividly painted threats to their way of life.