The Gifford Shooting: The Debate and the Meta-Debate

[markpkessinger]

It is certainly a bit of a stretch to draw, as some have attempted, a direct, causal line from the violent rhetoric of the far right to the actions of this very disturbed young man. HOWEVER, it is fair to say that the constant repetition of violent metaphors by public figures fosters an environment -- particularly among our less stable citizens -- where actual violence is increasingly seen as a legitimate option (rendering the whole counter-debate over whether the shooter was from the left or the right largely irrelevant).

In some cases, the rhetoric has not been simply metaphorical: witness Sharron Angle's remarks during her campaign that if conservatives were unable to succeed at the ballot box they would have to consider "Second Amendment types of remedies." That is not a metaphor; in a metaphor, one thing stands symbolically for something else. The Second Amendment is about one thing: firearms. Ms. Angle may not have intended to call people to literally begin using guns to force their political will, but neither can she claim that such a phrase was merely metaphorical. It was, rather, a choice of words calculated to inflame the most extreme elements among her supporters.

As for the explanation that the graphics on Palin's website, showing the pictures of various elected politicians in the crosshairs of a gun scope, the suggestion that it was actually intended to convey the idea of a surveyor's scope is, to put it bluntly, the biggest line of shit I've ever heard. I seriously doubt anybody but the most die-hard Palin supporters will see it as anything other than that. That imagery partakes of a visual vocabulary that has been in common use in films and in graphic print for as long as gun scopes have been in existence, was fully intended to give the impression sighting a target. Was the intent to foster violence? Of course not. But it is self-serving and disingenuous for Palin and her handlers to claim otherwise.

Senator Lamar Alexander has suggested that the media's discussions about the impact of violent imagery and rhetoric is the thing that fosters the climate of violence. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Attempting to claim that meta-discussions about rhetoric are a bigger problem than actual violent rhetoric itself is a line of reasoning is a far, far bigger stretch than the suggestion that the far right's violent rhetoric is the direct cause of the Arizona shootings.

There was a time in this country's history, not so very long ago (I remember it, and I'm just shy of 50 years old), when it was generally, widely accepted that public figures -- politicians, pundits, media types, even celebrities -- had an overriding responsibility, by virtue of the fact that their words are given such widespread exposure, to temper their rhetoric, to make a conscientious effort, when speaking publicly, to choose words that would not be likely to be misconstrued by people functioning at the margins of mental competence or stability. Fringe elements, comprised of persons whose stability is questionable, are nothing new in our society. But what has been happening in recent years is that some public figures have made an intentional decision to speak publicly the same way they might speak privately with someone they've known all their lives. Initially, I think, it was done for it's shock value, but the shock value has worn off. Meanwhile, a large part of the public really eats this up. They see it as indicative that the speaker is "one of us," that he/she is "calling it like they see it," and is thus evidence of some greater authenticity. Unfortunately, what they fail to see is that when public figures engage in such untempered rhetoric, there is nothing "authentic" about it; rather, it is a cynical ploy calculated to elicit the perception that the speaker is just like us, even when the reality is often far different.

What public figures -- even unelected ones -- need to remember is that they are, in some sense, leaders (whether the realm of leadership be political, cultural, religious, social) and as such carry a burden of responsibility for their rhetoric and for what could potentially result from that rhetoric. When such figures/leaders encounter instances of violent or extreme rhetoric among their constituencies, they have an added responsibility to admonish those who are engaging in it, and to lead those folks to a more constructive, less harmful expression of their ideas. What the rest of us need to remember is that such figures, by virtue of carrying that burden, are NOT like the rest of us, and when they are cavalier about their use of violent imagery and violent metaphors, they demonstrate a fundamental lack of fitness for the political/social/cultural/etc. leadership position they hold (or seek to hold).

[dkf]

1. Yet in the days of the internet, officials aren't the only ones who can broadcast their views

Does that make every poster culpable?

[markpkessinger]

2. To a degree, yes

To the extent that any of us participates in, and potentially influences, the public discourse, then I would argue that yes, we each have a moral responsibility for what our words may engender.

[saras]

3. What debate?

I don't see any debate - I just see controversy. The difference is that debate requires rational discourse and collective work towards an acceptable solution. Controversy requires nothing more than someone willing to act out the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch.

[rbnyc]

4. Thank you.

"HOWEVER, it is fair to say that the constant repetition of violent metaphors by public figures fosters an environment -- particularly among our less stable citizens -- where actual violence is increasingly seen as a legitimate option (rendering the whole counter-debate over whether the shooter was from the left or the right largely irrelevant)."

I keep trying to say this and no one wants to hear me.