The Shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the Language of Violence

Before the horrendous assassination attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the shooting of 20 people, leaving six of them dead, Giffords knew that she had been specially marked by by her opponents.  Tea Party conservatives wanted her out of office, even though she is a conservative Democrat, and weren't afraid to use thinly-veiled calls for violence against her to achieve their goal.

Her opponent in her 2010 Congressional race staged an event to "target" her by offering voters a chance to shoot an M16. Her Tucson office had been vandalized after her vote on the health care bill in March of last year, as had other Congressional offices.  And Sarah Palin advocated for getting her out of office -- her PAC site posting a map of the country with a graphic of the cross-hairs of a gun-sight on each of the offices she wanted her chosen candidates to win, one of those being Giffords'.  The Sarah Palin PAC site has taken down the map, but you can see it at her Facebook Fan Page.  Spokespeople for Palin now are claiming that the marks on the map were not intended to be cross-hairs -- you be the judge.  It would certainly be consistent with her continuing theme of calling on conservatives to "reload."

Palin certainly isn't the only extreme conservative who's felt that it's appropriate political gamesmanship to use slightly veiled language of violence to promote political agendas.

Former U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle  frequently remarked during her race against Harry Reid that if elections don't go the way people want, they can always resort to their "Second Amendment remedies," suggesting that revolution was possible.  Conservative radio host Tammy Bruce prominently posts a photo on her site sitting at her microphone, casually holding a gun.   Glenn Beck is forever invoking images of rivers of blood, calling for conservatives to drive a stake through the hearts of vampire Democrats, telling his fans that he'd like to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine, and so much more.  Beck tries to cover his tracks by writing posts claiming to promote non-violence, while continually using examples of violence and death for his fans to ruminate about.

Those who feel free to use the imagery of violence to achieve their political goals are saying how sad they are about what happened at Giffords' town hall meeting, yet they aren't apologizing for their reckless and careless use of gun imagery nor are they calling on their  supporters to reflect after this horrible attack and to rethink how they approach the language they use to foment their purported "revolution."

One has to ask, at what point do people -- especially those with a high profile or a media megaphone -- become responsible for the actions of those who've taken their hyperbole to heart?  You don't need to be the one with a loaded gun in your hand to bear some measure of moral, if not legal, responsibility for the actions of those whose anger and desperation you've stoked for your own political gain.

If I give a toddler a book of matches and leave her alone in my house, who's responsible if the house burns down?  I might not have lit the match, but I created the irresponsible circumstances for the catastrophe.

Plenty of people will claim that you can't hold politicians responsible for events that may or may not be related to their right to political free speech.   But words have power.  And words have consequences.  Sure, you're free to stand on a soapbox on the corner to talk about your political views, but you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater that ends up causing a deadly stampede.

The callous and careless use of the language of violence has become de rigueur in our 21st century political world.  That's no solace to the mother of  nine-year-old Christina Greene who was killed in the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Giffords, a budding politico who had come to the Giffords' event because she wanted to learn more about how she could be a part of the system of governing in our country.  At nine, Christina Greene was too young to understand that some who play the game of American politics have no reservations about invoking hyperbole that incites those whose lives and livelihoods hang in the balance today, and that the politicians who believe it's acceptable to incite those feelings have no compulsion to back off that path.

I can only hope that voters will see this dangerous game for what it is and realize that politicians who believe it's acceptable to invoke the language of violence for their political purposes, yet feel no remorse for their part in the actions of people who took their words to heart, have no place in the job of governing.

You can also find Joanne at her place, PunditMom, & Politics Daily.

Comments

[Daisy]

Well stated. My heart goes out to the families of all involved - and to the constituents in this volatile district.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

"Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

*Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)*

"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/8/934497/-NYTs-Matt-Bai-accuse-Dkos-of-scrubbing-comment-about-Rep.-Giffords.

The moral equivocating that goes on with the liberals is no different than what goes on with the conservatives. I see no difference and a lot of backpedaling.

Visit Democratic Underground lately? The death and rape imagery? The hatred and hyperbole? Everyone need to clean their own homes before looking after someone else's. I'm ashamed to be a liberal.

[annie]

Americans have always succumbed to violent rhetoric. Especially when times were tough or social changes were coming fast and furious. This idea that we've ever had mindful debate is as much a fiction as the "good old days" when America was a utopia.

What happened in Arizona should surprise no one. Our culture is a mean one and we seldom sit up and take notice unless it crosses some imaginary line in the sand. Even when it happens, we rarely take stock for long. Nothing is going to be learned or will change as a result of the shooting. We aren't ready as a people to truly examine, equally own blame and work together. Sadly, things are quite bad enough yet for that to happen.

[Angie [A Whole Lot of Nothing]]

Brilliant. I'm proud to call you my friend and proud to share this with everyone I know.

[What is Working]

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

In times like these where we are frustrated and sad, I find it useful to "do something", you may want to sign this petition.

Tell Sarah Palin: Violent threats have consequences

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/palin_violence/?r=6816&id=14885-1958963-zZ_sBZx

[Daily Cup of Jo]

I, too, would love to see remorse on the part of those, right or left, who have hinted at violence as a means to a political end. It's time to take a collective breath. My heart breaks for Christina Green and all others killed or wounded in Saturday's tragic event. Their families will never be the same.

[Andrea]

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin for President, believe me. I'm not against her as a person, just as a presidential candidate, altho I realize she has every right to run as a candidate if she wishes.

However, I think it is so stupid it's laughable, for anyone on the planet to think that Sarah Palin was advocating the shooting of opposing candidates, by putting up the map that she did. Come on... honestly... does anyone look at that map & think that she HONESTLY is secretively or subliminally saying "Hey, folks, we need seats in both the House & the Senate... go out & kill the opposing candidates, if you have to, cos we have to win those seats any way we can!!". *sigh* Puh-leez!!

We are so hyper-uber-sensitive these days I'm surprised anybody says anything outloud. Common sense must be the rule of the day here, folks. Some nut case tries to kill a congresswoman & right away we blame a map for inciting him to do so. If we use that logic, I guess we can say that the sexy images on the front of Cosmo magazine incite rape... and beer commercials cause people to drink & drive... and McDonald's newspaper coupons give people the uncontrollable urge to eat 10 Big Macs every week for 25 yrs running & then die from heart disease.

If that's the case, let's just shut down the internet... shut down cable & satellite tv... pull the plug on radio... get rid of all print media... and everybody sit in their house in complete silence, with nothing to look at but your four walls. Using that logic we can then stop all crime 100% from happening, can't we?!

Wonder what caused assasinations back in the 1700s, when there was no tv, internet, radio, or magazines?? I have no doubt somebody will say Sarah Palin's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather must have ridden around on horseback in the middle of the night, yelling for people to grab their muskets & kill their non-Republican neighbors!

By the way, if this blog entry on this website is supposed to be "raising the next generation of blue", I'm here to tell you you're not raising the next generation of MY blue!! My next generation can truly tell the difference between blue & red. I don't think this blog can.

In honesty~ Andrea

[PunditMom/Joanne Bamberger]

I wasn't saying Palin was specifically advocating that people should shoot someone. What I'm saying is that people need to be careful with their words. High profile candidates and talking heads know exactly what they are doing when they use they language of violence and revolution -- they're trying to foment something. Maybe they are not outright advocating the use of violence -- but they should know that then they invoke such imagery and use it constantly as a drumbeat, that there is a slice of society that will take it to heart and possibly do something terrible.

And even if no one would take their words to heart, what's wrong with calling for everyone to dial back the revolutionary rhetoric and have a more civil conversation-- like, about the issues?

[Amanda]

This was a sad event, I am glad that it is being recognized and more-so I hope that people learn from this tragedy and future generations do not repeat this mistake.

[amerikanka]

How awful it is! It feels like the violence develops day by day! We need to stop it! I really sympathize the families of victims.

[What is Working]

Last night the President rose to the occasion in every way. He delivered a healing, uplifting speech, that called on us all to try our best. I am so grateful to have him as my President. I am also grateful to this blog which gives us an opportunity to support each other as we strive to help the country heal and recover.

As I read over the quote

"As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."

I was reminded of the issue of mental illness. Lost in the finger pointing and hysteria is the tragic fact that a young man was deeply troubled, everyone knew it, and no one was able to help.

Today, for the first time I created an original blog post, usually I feature an article written by someone else. With a bit of nervousness, I invite you to visit the blog, read my article on Health Care Reform and Mental Illness, and offer a comment.

http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/01/health-care-reform-and-mental-illness.html

[R.S.HAILE]

The article above is utter drivel. The shooter was not influenced by any of the nonsense you wrote. Odd how you left out any mention of that loathsome congressWoman who wished Bush dead. Golly gee. Short memory? Or just devious?