It may have happened over a week ago, but cable news stations are still abuzz with news (or rehashes of the old news) of the Arizona shooting. Laughner is in jail, rumors of a second suspect have been put to bed, but this business about negative political rhetoric keeps popping up.
No. Political rhetoric did not make Jared Lee Laughner pull the trigger all of those times and kill six people. He was mentally unstable. I was among the thousands of people that rolled their eyes at the television after watching reporter after reporter ponder whether the harsh rantings of extreme political commentators had anything to do with Laughner’s fixation on Giffords. No, it didn’t.
But, this situation, while unrelated, should give us pause to consider the necessity of this kind of rhetoric. I’m certainly not saying that Rush Limbaugh’s rants or Glenn Beck’s borderline anti-Semitic commentary will result in another Arizona shooting, but is any of it really necessary?
The title of the bill to repeal healthcare reform is called “Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Law Act,” and Boehner has gone back and forth in public replacing “killing” with “destroying,” perhaps to pacify calls from angry Democrats saying the name is too harsh.
But I mean, honestly? The law would be exactly the same if it was instead simply titled “Repealing the Health Care Law Act.” It would be functionally the same, except for there would be no unnecessary snipe present.
Additionally, what’s all of this business about “blood libel?” I’m a well-known Palin critic, but she wasn’t the only one to use that phrase. Hey Glenn Reynolds, Adam Graham and yes, Sarah Palin, where are your fact checkers, aids and friends that might be history buffs that could probably tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that you should stay away from the loaded phrase?
Additionally, wouldn’t the same point be made that there are certain politicians that you disagree with by putting dots on the map instead of crosshairs? And wouldn’t your point that Obama has done us wrong be made just as well by simply saying he was wrong rather than putting up a poster of his mugshot and declaring he is “wanted for treason”? I think so.
The problem with Washington is, and has always been, that parties just can’t seem to play nice together. It should be, I feel, pretty obvious that loaded rhetoric doesn’t help that situation.
Democrats came into office in 2008 and fought hard to force through all of their ideas while rarely consulting the Republicans for their thoughts and hardly ever toning down their bills to sate the tastes of those that might be more moderate, all the while spewing messages about how Republicans wanted everyone to “die quickly.” Well guess what, they are all gone now.
If Republicans don’t want to fall to the same fate, they are going to have to reach across the aisle when they make their policy decisions this go around. And in order to do that, they are going to have to tone down their fiery phrases and stick with what is necessary instead of what would cause the most sting on the playground.
So, yeah, all of those commentators that say that this rhetoric is going to lead to shootings and mass havoc are probably wrong. And no, its probably not necessary to ban the use of crosshairs or gun-talk in political language. But it is necessary for politicians to tone themselves down and take a lesson from their kindergarten classes: you don’t make friends if you are threatening to pull a gun on them.
Jessica Huseman is a junior journalism major. She can be reached for comment at [email protected].
