The shooting in Arizona shocked the U.S. into grief – and presented Sarah Palin with an immediate political problem: her now-notorious gunsight map.I generally don't like David From's viewpoint, but I think the above (especially if you read the whole article) is reasonable.
Palin scrubbed the map from her Palin PAC website, and then issued the following statement on her Facebook page:My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.Then, as Palin came under a barrage of criticism, her supporters stepped forward to offer defenses. The gunsights were not really gunsights. The criticism of Palin was unfair, even “obscene.”
And of course, they had a point. Obviously, Palin never intended to summon people to harm Representative Giffords. There was no evidence that the shooter was a Palin follower, and in short order it became evident that he was actuated by a serious mental illness. Whatever you think about Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric, it could not be blamed for this crime.
So – argument won? No. Argument lost.
Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”
Here it seems to me are the elements of such an answer.
1) Take the accusation seriously. ...
2) Express real grief and sincere compassion. ...
3) Be visible. ...
4) Join the conversation. ...
5) Challenge your opponents. ...
6) Raise the issue of mental health. ...
7) Think what you would like – not your supporters – but your opponents to say about you. ...
The viewpoint closest to my heart comes from Paul Krugman writing an op-ed for the NY Times:
Climate of HateThe article has more. Go read the whole thing.
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
...
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
The Great Recession was an opportunity for Obama to grab the US by the scruff of the neck, pick it up, and point it in a new direction. Unfortunately he failed the nation by failing to take the opportunity to redefine the nation. Here is an opportunity for the people of the US to redefine their politics. Get it out of the ugly, petty, violent present and point it towards a more hopeful, more intelligent, more positive direction where ideas are seriously debated and room for compromise is found. Will the country lose this opportunity as it lost the previous one? I hope not. But in my heart of hearts I'm afraid it will. Great changes come to countries, not not always even if they are sorely needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment