Is political rhetoric to blame for a culture of violence?

Yes.

Toxic political tone erodes civic trust and incites extremism.

By Hank Johnson

The attempted assassination of my friend and colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was an attack on all Americans, our Constitution, and our way of life. It was also a wake-up call. Our culture of violence and our zero-sum political discourse, unhinged by the extreme and hateful rhetoric of shock jocks and demagogues, threaten the Republic.

Two weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi handed the House Speaker’s gavel to John Boehner. Though Democrats lamented loss of the House, all Americans should appreciate the peaceful transfer of political power, a basic goal of our Constitutional system and something rarely achieved in the history of nations. We had a spirited national debate. There were disagreements. The people spoke, and their will was respected and upheld. The principle that civic disagreements must be resolved in the courts, the legislature, and the ballot box — not through the barrel of a gun — is fundamental to the American way of life.

By substituting violence for political advocacy, the shooter who grievously wounded Giffords and killed six Americans attacked not only innocent people but our democracy itself. The dark irony of the attack’s setting — a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting, at which Giffords made herself available to hear the concerns of her constituents — only underscores the point.

Our prayers are with Rep. Giffords, the families of those killed and wounded, and all those still fighting for their lives in Arizona.

While we pray, we must recognize this despicable act as a wake-up call. Acts of political violence are not without precedent in American history, but they have come at moments when deeply divisive forces test our mettle as a democracy.

This is such a moment.

This plot was hatched in a toxic political climate permeated by vitriol and, in some cases, marked by deeply disturbing calls to near insurrection. The paranoid delusions of the alleged shooter could only have been deepened by the rock-bottom tone of our national debate, which erodes civic trust and incites extremism.

Tempting though the political blame game may be, partisan attacks dishonor the victims of this crime. It is not difficult to identify the sources of incitement and extremist rhetoric in our politics, and I call upon all of those who have played fast and loose with civility to earnestly reconsider their words and deeds.

It is a time for demagogues to search their souls and change course. It is a time for all of us to search our souls. Politicians of all stripes sew anger and division. Angry words can lead to angry acts, and political leaders should set a tone befitting a nation that reveres tolerance and democracy.

Beyond the political realm, this tragedy should provoke new reflection on the crass attitudes toward violence that make our country an uglier, more dangerous place. What happened in Tucson happens all too often on the streets of our cities, where gunshot and assault victims die anonymously, with no TV coverage or national moments of mourning. Often there is only a grieving mother, brother or child.

We can do better. For all the horror of Tucson, we do a disservice to the victims and to the nation if we do not seize this moment, look within and put a better foot forward.

Awakened by this horrific violence, we should renew our shared determination to defend our democracy, strengthen our commitment to civility even in the face of disagreement, and affirm our belief that we are all Americans — no matter our views on health care, taxes, financial regulation, foreign policy or abortion. Let those who profit from division and fan the flames of distrust and discontent reconsider their actions.

And let us seek peace.

U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., represents the Fourth District.

No.

Lament about ‘political discourse’ is just cover to silence opponents.

By Jonah Goldberg

In the wake of the horrendous shooting rampage in Tucson, why isn’t anyone talking about banning “Mein Kampf”? Or “The Communist Manifesto”? Or for that matter, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”?

After all, unlike Sarah Palin’s absurdly infamous Facebook map with crosshairs on congressional districts that some pundits have blamed for the violence, we have some evidence — suspect Jared Lee Loughner’s own words — that these books were a direct influence on him.

And to listen to partisans such as Keith Olbermann exploiting this horrific crime, any rhetoric or writing or images that contributed to it must be stopped, and those who don’t accept blame and then repent (specifically Palin) must be “dismissed from politics.”

Note: It’s apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer’s friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the “tea parties” or, in most cases, Palin.

Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent — or even incoherent — ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insists he wasn’t surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don’t support his premonitions.

If these people seriously believe that the tea parties and Palin’s “lock and load” rhetoric are to blame, then what shall we do about it?

It’s hard to find a serious answer. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame at Republican or right-wing feet in an effort to anathematize ideas they don’t like.

But that’s shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady, D-Pa., has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language (“lock and load!”) that could foster violence. “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” he told CNN.

That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?

If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show — as any number of murderers have been over the years — would those blaming the tea parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood?

Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by “Catcher in the Rye.” Should that be banned?

When the subject of censorship or the “chilling” of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn.

I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don’t blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.

No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria.

Meanwhile, many proud liberals, not to mention dedicated journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our “political discourse.” The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as “extreme” is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric.

These critics’ aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell “shut up” at their political opponents.