Is there another way to ask for less violent rhetoric?
Let me say that I think it’s reasonable for many conservatives to feel grieved by the notion that the shootings in Tucson should be laid at the feet of their movement.
As I’ve written before, tea party activists, mainstream conservatives, and Republican leaders have engineered a political revival that is — with passingly few exceptions — peaceful and democratic.
So let me put a question to everyone, including but not limited to the conservatives who take part in this conversation:
Is there a way, without laying blame or pointing fingers, to agree that this kind of rhetoric should stop?
This is a sincere question. So let me appeal to you to lay aside the easy score one-liners and rhetorical zingers and really wrestle with it for a minute.
Is there some way that we can we agree that there’s no place for guns at peaceful political rallies? Can we agree that “by any means necessary” us an unacceptable slogan, in a society that holds free and fair elections?
Can we agree to rebuke and reject politicians who employ symbols, or code-phrases, which imply that violence might be an alternative, if success at the ballot box isn’t achieved?
Can we decide as a society to turn off radio and TV stations where hosts dehumanize their political opponents by calling them “traitors” or “evil” or the “worst person in the world.”
This doesn’t have to be a right-left thing. Civility and manners aren’t the province of one political persuasion. Neither is a capacity for intelligent discourse.
Obviously, none of this rhetorical detente would exclude spirited, even passionate disagreements. We can still have conservative TV stations and liberal TV stations. We can still argue over Thanksgiving dinner.
We can all find people who agree with us that the other side’s ideas are wrong for the country and that there is good cause to contribute money and help organize and rally the vote for change.
We can do that without demonizing the other side or suggesting that the Republic will fall by next Thursday if our side doesn’t prevail.
Is there anything wrong with this dialed-down approach? Does anyone think our society, our democracy, or our airwaves would be impoverished if we demanded better of our pundits and politicians?
On the contrary. If the vast majority of us put the crazy talk back in the box, then we would know something very important about those people — right or left — who still resort to it.
We would know know that they’re crazy and bad for America.
The problem with trying to control free speech is that beauty is in the eye of the controller.
It cannot be done. It is unconstitutional to try.
What is being overlooked in this discussion is that political-speak had zero influence on this looney guy in Tucson.
If Obama wants to “bring a gun” to a political rally (figuratively, but non-the-less explicitly) let him say so.
We cannot stop looney people from being looney. We can only come prepared.
JDM –
I was hoping you’d chime in. Let me nudge you one more time. No one here is trying to control free speech.
There’s a difference between banning something and encouraging people to exercise better judgment.
So let me ask one more time: Without scoring points on Obama, or feeling that you need to defend Palin, is there a reason that we can’t be more civil?
Not to stop murderers, but simply because it’s good for our country.
Is there something inherently wrong with demanding civility?
Brian, NCPR
“Demanding”
What’s the difference between demand and control?
Is there something inherently wrong with demanding civility?
Yes. Cannot be done without defining civility. Beauty then goes to the eyes of the definer.
JDM,
we certainly can “stop looney people from being looney”. It’s called MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
In the interim, all Brian (and most rational people) are asking for is that we talk about issues in political discourse, rather than turning it into some sort of steel cage death match.
If you want to roar “I’m gonna rip my enemy to pieces!!”, try a role playing game.
Brian, in all seriousness, I see absolutely nothing wrong with law abiding, sane citizens carrying a gun anywhere, anytime, political events notwithstanding. So I’ll get that out of the way right off. I don’t share this irrational fear of inanimate objects. To my way of thinking, realistically, it’s no different than carrying a cell phone, pocket knife, Blackberry, Ipod or any of a million other inanimate objects or tools. In my opinion anyone that suffers from this irrational fear of guns had better do some soul searching and realize it’s PEOPLE you fear. At least be honest about it. And it’s people that do crazy, stupid, thoughtless things. It’s people that can’t control themselves, go nuts, prevent those nuts from being institutionalized, commit crimes, hurt people, rob people, rape people and then make a million excuses for them. It’s people that are the problem, not the tools they use. Gun, knife, car, airplane, baseball bat, rope, fire, poison, fists, water….they’re all deadly used improperly. My problem is that the people with the irrational fear want to remove my ability and right to protect my family and property, to enjoy my hobby, to continue my family heritage and tradition and I haven’t done ANYTHING to warrant the loss of my rights and freedoms. And while they seem to have the best of intentions they simply cannot offer even a remote assurance that by doing so crime will fall, victimization will plummet and that anyone will be any “safer” than before. It’s an old saying, but when guns are outlawed (removed/restricted), only outlaws will have guns. It’s a right and a responsibility. What is socially unacceptable to me (no, I don’t pack a gun to church or political rallies) may still be legal. If you want to bring pressure to bear because it’s a social faux pas to bring a gun to Walmart, fine. But it’s simply wrong to try and disarm law abiding, sane citizens, they AREN’T the problem!
The rhetoric? I would say it’s almost entirely a matter of perception. I read and hear things from a fiscal/social conservative standpoint. I hear hate and vitriol in much from the left, even here I hear it in the comments regarding religion, healthcare, politics in general. You in the other hand hear violent speech from another view point, one that I don’t hear at all. I have yet to hear Beck call for violence. In fact I continually hear him say just the opposite. What I think you are hearing is him saying he understands/sympathizes/recognizes the feelings some people have, that some people are so frustrated, feel so disenfranchised and powerless, see their pockets being emptied and childrens and grandchildrens future being borrowed away and spent on useless (to them) programs and pork, hear their traditions and heritage being relabeled as subversive, backward, ignorant, hear themselves portrayed a little more than religious bigots and gun toting hicks….how are they supposed to feel Brian? Good? Valued? Warm and fuzzy? Why would anyone not feel angry, frustrated and cheated?
Let me ask you the same question with a different twist- will the left stop using inflammatory rhetoric towards those of us that disagree with Obama, Pelosi, Reid? Will they stop referring to anyone who disagrees with Obama as a racist? Will they stop calling anyone who doesn’t believe in gay marriage as homophobes? Will they stop referring to anyone who thinks Obamacare is a major mistake as hate filled idiots? Will they stop the constant attacks on anything traditional in the USA? Will they ever let the right talk without calling everything and everything said hate speech? Nope, it won’t happen Brian. You aren’t going to silence Rush till you shut Olbermann up. You aren’t going to get the right to cool it until you get the left to cool it. Do you really think you’ll get Michael Moore or Ted Ralls to “tone it down”?
It’s speech, political speech, protected speech. Your inflammatory language and perception of things is no better or worse than Becks, Palins, Obamas or Bloombergs. Someone (Jefferson?) said something about the price of freedom being the chance of being offended or harmed. Lotta truth in that.
I’ve been following the In Box for awhile and one of the reasons is the mostly cordial discussion of ideas. This forum shows me that yes, we can have a cordial discussion of the various opinions we have. To me Freedom of Speech is the freedom to express ideas. At the same time we need to be respectful of those ideas and the people expressing them. Attacking each other or the “other” side does not encourage receptivity to new possibilities.
For a lot of people, Brian, the answer to your main question is no. They can’t agree to tone it down, because anger is fun, and a big part of their identity. Civility is unmanly. Weak. Foreign. And most important, it’s not entertaining. Bringing one’s blood to a boil is a rush.
I posted this earlier on a different comment thread, but it really is worth reading:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-giffords-tragedy-is-the-media-partly-at-fault-20110110
Civility probably is too broad a term.
As this conversation has unfolded in recent days there are people who have tried to lump those who use analogies or sports cliches or movie quotes in with those who literally encourage violence.
Which, of course, is dishonest and laughable.
So for me, step one is to get more specific about the kind of rhetoric we are talking about here. And I think it starts with language that explicitly encourages or threatens armed violence.
“In my opinion anyone that suffers from this irrational fear of guns had better do some soul searching and realize it’s PEOPLE you fear. At least be honest about it.”
It is actually people with guns that I fear.
Brian, the kind of dialog you are asking for and that I think is the only realistic way to solve our problems requires that everyone involved have a healthy dose of doubt about the infallibility of their own political beliefs/opinions and that they be willing to actually listen to the other side’s concerns. We have some of those in congress, I think Bills Owens is one of them. Unfortunately the ones that get the media attention are the bellicose ones. I’d love to see your proposal happen but I’m not holding my breath.
Bret, RE: Your notion of a gun being no different than a cell phone, just another inanimate object. Cell phones don’t kill people and (FWIW) I’m not afraid of people, I’m afraid of people with guns, especially those carrying guns in places where a gun clearly not needed. People who feel the need to carry a gun everywhere are the ones afraid or they wouldn’t feel the need to carry a gun. I’m afraid of being hit by a car too (more than being shot) but I still go for walks and ride my bicycle on the road. I don’t go out in a Sherman Tank just in case. There are chances we take in life. You can’t “equalize” the odds all the time.
In case people want a list of quotes from conservative politicians and commentators, see here:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/john-dingell-runs-through-litany-of-violent-rhetoric-on-house-floor-video.php
Bret, in that link you will find two quotes from Beck. One saying he wants to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel, and one that he prays that Denis Kuchinich bursts into flames.
Compare statements like that to “Beck’s a racist”, and it’s like comparing apples to oranges. To say “I want to kill X” and “Y is a homophobe” is equal? Give me a break.
“To say “I want to kill X” and “Y is a homophobe” is equal?”
This is the crux of the conversation in my opinion.
JDM –
Okay, two more questions:
First, can you please say what you think civil discourse would sound like? Is what we have now what you prefer?
Or would you like to have something better or different? If so, what?
Second, the difference between demand and control is simple. It’s the distinction between abstinence and prohibition.
If we all agree to voluntarily boycott people who use violent rhetoric, we marginalize them by our shared good will.
We don’t have to “ban” them. We just make them irrelevant.
–Brian, NCPR
We will never agree to a definition of civility.
I think civility means that you can never say, “I disagree with Rush Limbaugh”
Whoever says that is uncivil by my definition and must be banned from public discourse. If they hold an elected office, they must abdicate.
[this is an absurd example to make a point, of course]
We will never agree on a definition of civility.
Brian –
your post wasn’t visible to me while I was typing. I think I kind of answered it, anyway.
I take back the “banning” part.
They must just be made irrelevant, as you suggest.
Could you please define what you mean by that?
Here’s another example of my definition of civility.
Anyone who says,
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
should be boycotted, right, Brian?
A handgun is a tool just like many other tools except that unlike most other tools its function is to kill. So if you bring a tool made to kill to a public event most reasonable people will feel threatened.
I believe it is very unlikely that any of the Founding Fathers would have believed it is appropriate for people in a free society to be carrying Glocks to a political event. Clearly that is an act meant to intimidate others into limiting their speech.
I think civility is a good word and we do know what it means.
Part of the problem in my opinion is actually the media and the 24 hour news cycle.
Civility does not get noticed and ignorant one liners do get noticed, and in today’s world being noticed is the most important thing in the world it is more important than being right it is more important than being civil.
I think a study of civility in political discourse would be interesting, when did we first start this in your face anything goes, any type of filthy language is okay idea in American politics? Maybe we have always done this? The early political pamplets were pretty crazy sounding. Also thinking of the chanting and rioting in the 60’s and early 70’s that was very uncivil in its language.
Mervel:
We know, in general, what civility means.
But there will be some who want measure it by who says it. Already, some on these threads have tried to excuse Obama’s gun quote, because it was Obama who said it. Had Sarah Palin said it, it would be violence.
Sarah Palin said “Blood Libel”. Watch what the left does with that. Had John Kerry said it – no problem.
Makakah, anyone?
No, Brian, we cannot limit uncivil speech. No one will ever agree to its meaning, and if they do, it will depend on WHO said it.
Fairness doctrine
Net Neutrality
Civility
all attempts of the left to do what the 1st amendment says we cannot do – pass a law limiting free speech.
Perhaps we can think of civility as the antithesis to bullying and while we haven’t heard the term ‘bullying’ used in these discussions, it seems to me that Giffords was bullied by Palin (when Palin included her in her ‘targeted list’) as well as her Tea Party opponent (Jesse Kelly) in November. Even though we usually think of bullying as something that happens in interpersonal contexts, there are certainly examples of bullying in the public sphere. Perhaps these public episodes of bullying can also be described as episodes in which someone (the bully) did not act in a civil manner.
No one – including politicians – deserves to be bullied. Bullies use language (or other symbols) to make someone feel threatened and unsafe. Giffords had said that being mentioned on Palin’s website made her feel uncomfortable. I certainly can understand why she’d feel uncomfortable.
The tolerance of bullying in the public sphere increases the tolerance of bullying everywhere — schools, homes, etc. Likewise, tolerance of bullying in more private places increases the tolerance with it at the public level. It is not in coincidental that bullying in schools has been on the rise at the same time as has the lack of civility in public spaces and in public discourses. The good news is that there is increased attention to bullying in our own communities. In fact, on Jan. 19 there will be a community discussion in Plattsburgh about bullying. This is the public’s response to bullying in the schools and I think that the debates that are erupting now about the meaning of the Arizona shootings are, in part, the public’s response to anger about bullying at the public level.
Brian M., the inability to reach seemingly reasonable common ground around even obvious violent rhetoric raises an interesting question. If the people who are responsible for this violent rhetoric are unable to give it up, and if the people who defend them are unable to be reasoned with about it, then at what point do you stop trying to have this discussion with them and begin the process of attempting to marginalize them? And what does that even look like?
JDM says “But there will be some who want measure it by who says it. Already, some on these threads have tried to excuse Obama’s gun quote, because it was Obama who said it. Had Sarah Palin said it, it would be violence.” It does and it should matter who makes a statement. Aristotle referred to this as ethos — the credibility/character of the speaker. Palin touts herself as an NRA advocate and hunter. She has constructed herself as someone who is comfortable with and knowledgeable about guns. Therefore, audiences will read her references to guns/violence differently than they will any references to guns made by Obama.
Kudos for the effort, Brian, but I suggest that we just leave JDM, arms folded and feet planted, muttering his dark thoughts to himself.
Noting a small irony: those whose priority is to limit government and to promote personal responsibility seem to having a heck of a lot of trouble grasping the concept of taking personal responsibility for their own words and behavior.
Meanwhile, I’m going to take heart that there seem to be quite a lot of us — including several with whom I disagree — who do grasp the concept of civil discourse and who are willing to debate the issues on the basis of fact and fair-mindedness.
Brian, information I’ve gotten so far seems to indicate that your question, while perhaps valid in the larger national context , may be irrelevant in the case of the Tucson tragedy. The shooter seems to have undergone a slow descent into madness, been focused totally on on Rep. Giffords for as yet unexplained reasons, and shows no evidence whatsoever of any ideological bent (registered independent, did not vote in 2010 election). As of yet, there is no evidence that Rush, Sarah, or Glenn inhabited his world at all, for better or for worse. He was just crazy-mean. Maybe stronger gun laws would have stopped him, maybe not. But not more civility. Or so it seems now.
Brian, my question to you is, why is that we must always try to read some kind of larger meaning into events that are basically random acts of lunatics?
i’m on a bit of a self-imposed commenting ban at the moment, but i do want to say that i think there are two aspects of this that seem to be getting conflated here, and i wish they wouldn’t: violence in rhetoric vs. civility in rhetoric. “civility” is a broad term and there are lots of ways in which one can be civil or uncivil, but i don’t think people should go too far with it. if someone’s lying or being stupid or whatever, then i think they should be called out! for example, jdm thinks calling for civility is actually a trojan horse devised by pernicious liberals, the ultimate aim of which is to place legal restrictions on speech. i think the correct response to him is to call this out as delusional and paranoid, simple as that.
on the other hand, i think there ought to be a lot less room for violence in our rhetoric. speaking of “targeting” this district or that candidate strikes me as no problem at all, but intimations of violence against particular people are completely unacceptable.
Mayflower says, “but I suggest that we just leave JDM, arms folded and feet planted, muttering his dark thoughts to himself. ”
That is what Brian is suggesting hewants to do with everyone who he can label “uncivil”.
This blog would be a boring place, Mayflower, if all you got to hear was a bunch of people high-fiving you and agreeing with one point of view.
I’ll be here, as long as Brian allows me, or until I get labeled “uncivil”.
Mayflower may have shown the hand of what is behind “civil speak”.
Suggesting that I be put on “ignore” because he feels “threatened” by my thoughts.
That is what I contend is the purpose of “civil speak”.
JDM – Far from suggesting that you be left out, I’m asking for your views, but you’re not answering my question.
What do YOU think of the current rhetoric? Do you think the gun-and-violence symbolism is okay in politics?
You keep mentioning Obama’s gun-to-a-knife-fight phrase. Fair enough. Do you think he should have used different language? (I do.)
Do we have to be uncivil in order to disagree? Or could we use less threatening words and imagery to convey our very different ideas?
–Brian, NCPR
JDM,
you’re doing what the conservative movement does best: ignore the larger point at hand and take things personally. That’s why people are frustrated with your responses. Seriously, you think that Mayflower wants to have you banned?
in the many responses to this thread, you’ve picked the comments directed at you and decided to martyr yourself against them (are you going to make a huffy comment about me wanting you to *actually* do that? to pre-empt: that was sarcasm). Meanwhile, thoughtful commenters actually speaking to the larger point have their posts ignored.
As a side note: do you even know what net neutrality is? It has nothing to do with limiting free speech. It’s about equal download/upload speeds for ISPs.
verplank,
What do you think this means, “but I suggest that we just leave JDM, arms folded and feet planted, muttering his dark thoughts to himself.”
Brian: I am glad that you Obama’s comments were inappropriate. Some others suggested they were “taken out of context”.
I am for consitutionally-provided political free speech. I am for using constitutional means to protect ourselves.
Verplank, your TP link fails to provide context. As it happens, I recall hearing both those quotes live and the context is missing completely. It’s humor, maybe not that everyone finds funny, but if you know the schtick Beck does and the humor involved, you’d know the thought behind the words.
James, etc.- The instances of the people carrying guns to the political events that were national news last year? That was POLITICAL SPEECH. Clearly protected by the 1st Amend. Did they shoot anyone? Nope, It’s absolutely no different than what any other activist does. There’s no more “threat” to it than there was when people were burning Bush effigy’s, the Flag, etc. If you fail to grasp that, I can’t help you. If you suffer from this irrational fear of guns I can’t help that either.
Look, I can understand the point Brian is trying to make. We think we have a huge problem with the lack of civil discourse. Someone mentioned wondering if it’s ever been like this before. Yes, it was far worse in fact. Riots, Congressmen beating each other with canes, shootings,lynchings, using the military on protesters, etc. Read the history of the United States folks! Do you realize we fielded a larger Army to put down a tax rebellion than we did in the Revolutionary War?!!! And that was less than 20 years after the war IIRC. What do you think the atmosphere was like pre-Civil War? We have nothing even close to that today.
You want civil discourse. Nice, safe, white bread civil discourse where no one says anything mean or harsh or gets their nose bent. So we lower the bar to the point where everyone is comfortable and we expect….what? Will the deficit and national debt disappear? Will employment increase? Will rights be protected? Will Bill Mahr shut up? Other than a few kooks on the extreme right and left, I haven’t heard anyone actually calling for violence. I have seen the left attempting to use this latest tragedy as a tool to censor the right and lay blame for a crazy nut’s actions with no evidence to back it. That’s hardly civil discourse, is it? What is readily apparent is the lefts attempts to gain the moral high ground on this issue. That’s smart politically, even if it’s not entirely “right”, “fair” or “honest”. Those words differ depending on the application and your viewpoint I suppose.
I have no problem with trying to maintain civil discourse. It’s just that what’s civil varies so greatly depending on who is listening!
This discussion shows how a conversation can be hijacked (I’m sure JDM will accuse me of using an uncivil word) by one extremist.
It seems like pretty much everyone else can agree on what is civil and what is uncivil–you know it when you see it. But a small minority find they can get an undue amount of attention by constantly disagreeing with anything people say to them.
I am sure there are things JDM believes that I can agree with and I can understand some of his opinions even if I disagree, but would JDM ever agree with me? I suspect if I agreed with him/her he/she would change her/his mind.
When I was working in DOL as a supervisor, one of my roles was to deal with the angry ‘customers’. I’ve been shouted at, had someone pick a chair and threaten to hit me over the head with it, had guys come in with guns (guns are not allowed in state offices) and had death threats over the phone. While it wasn’t frequent it was often enough that I am enjoying retirement.
In dealing with angry people I quickly learned self-restraint, stay calm and centered. Losing your own cool (I did a couple of times) only escalates the problem to another potentially more violent level of rancor. Unfortunately, as some here have observed, the media flock to the loud, the belligerent and that is what gets attention sort of like grade school days when a couple of kids would start fighting, someone else would shout “fight, fight” and all the other kids came running.
I don’t think that civil discourse can be “policed” except through self-control. Somehow a significant portion of our society has failed to learn that self-control. I don’t have an answer to “how do we enforce civility”, just the request that we all think before we speak.
“Nope, It’s absolutely no different than what any other activist does. There’s no more “threat” to it than there was when people were burning Bush effigy’s, the Flag, etc. If you fail to grasp that, I can’t help you.”
That is just silly Bret. I have to believe you have thought through this issue more than it appears that you have. A burning effigy can kill you how?
Comparing that to a gun is just… odd.
Actually, civility is very easy to define. You stay cool and don’t become upset with what someone says. A civil person tends to use logic rather than emotion to express an opinion.
Guns/rifles/pistols? Not a problem if owned and used for hunting or target shooting. If you think any kind of firearm is ever going to protect you, you are probably imagining things – and are probably a bit of a coward too.
James Bullard writes, “Unfortunately, as some here have observed, the media flock to the loud, the belligerent and that is what gets attention sort of like grade school days when a couple of kids would start fighting, someone else would shout “fight, fight” and all the other kids came running.” Yup. Bullies often have more power than the people who are picked on. Or, in some cases, maybe they are seeking power. Name calling, references to violence, sarcasm all can be part of the bully’s toolkit. As well, they are characteristics of the egocentric and immature. Civic discourse is mature, well-reasoned, peaceful communication.
This seems to me to be something of a fool’s errand. Aside from the difficulty of defining “civility”, it should be apparent that, by and large, those with the largest followings have a vested interest (whether idealogical or economic, or both) in rousing the animal spirits of their flocks. More reasoned discourse may be an attractive objective in concept, but I believe it is an unachievable one. If the experience of recent decades is an indicator, “uncivil” discourse is not likely to be sanctioned. It is more likely to be rewarded.
It seems to me that we can agree to some ground rules about our public discourse, and abide by them as mutually agreed upon. Whether is Congress, the Senate or a web site. It seems to me some basics like no personal attacks, foul language, and sticking to issues to mention a few would help a good deal.
Jeeze Dave, did you read what I wrote? No one threatened to shoot anyone, did they? No. The display is a form of political speech, why else do you think he carried it openly? An empty rifle is no more a threat than that effigy that hung burning. In fact, hanging an effigy was considered violent political speech when related to Obama, so how do you square that?
Odd indeed.
Pete, I can provide you with hundreds of cases where the mere presence, not the use but the presence/display, of a firearm resulted in someone not being victimized. One of the most famous was Ronald Reagan showing a gun out a window and yelling at a man attacking a woman that he’d shoot. The attacker fled. Decades later then President Reagan met that woman and admitted to her that he’d had no ammunition for the gun!
IMO cowardice would be refusing to accept that in the end you are the sole protector of your life, family and property and attempting to rationalize that the police will protect you somehow. As the saying goes, “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy”. If you choose not to own a gun, fine, good for you, it’s not for everyone. But disarming those who would choose to ( and are legally qualified) is exactly the sort of thing that breeds the frustration and anger so many of us feel.
Bret, I’m not in favor of burning effigies either and I have no “irrational fear of guns”. FWIW I owned a rifle before joining the Army. Occasionally I’m sorry I sold it, a nice Savage bolt action 22, but… I didn’t need it. In the Army I was the best shot in my company hitting 396 of 400 targets and earning an expert marksman badge. I still have the medal in the drawer and am proud of it but the only gun I own now is a pellet gun I use to chase away the pigeons that roost on my roof. Why? Because I don’t need a gun. Looking back over the more than 6 decades of my life I can’t think of a time when I actually had NEED of a gun aside from the Army and even then the weapons were in storage when we didn’t actually need them.
I agree that a gun is a tool like any other but when you go for a walk you don’t carry the jack from your car. You don’t need it. When you are swimming you don’t take a hammer and saw. You don’t need them. In a civil society you do not need to carry a gun at all times, indeed there are times & places that it is inappropriate. I agree that carrying a gun is a message to those who aren’t. The message is “I can kill you in the blink of an eye if I take it into my head to do that”. That is not the kind of message I want to send to my fellow citizens nor do I want others sending that message to me. When we sink to the level that everyone does need to carry a deadly weapon we cease to be a civil society.
Bret – I can give you a zillion examples where we have decided to put limits on dangerous consumer items. swimming pools have to be fenced, lawn darts are illegal. Cars need to have all sorts of safety equipment. You cant take weapons on transportation systems. But back to Brians question. The answer to the civility question seems to be NO. I am definitely biased, but it seems that if we go to a rational discussion, it favors the liberals and puts the present conservatives – who rely more on visceral responses – at a real disadvantage.
I’m going to comment on my own, (uncommented-upon) comment above, because it occurs to me that there is something important to add, per Brian’s topic question re “civility.”
To restate my original point, there seems to be, at this point, ZERO evidence that Mr. Loughner was in any influenced by the climate of incivility and hatred in the media, etc., etc. Rather (as of now, at least), he seems to be a lone nut, with some kind of grudge against Rep. Giffords, and a Glock with some 31-shot magazines. As of now, there is ZERO evidence that the climate of incivility, which certainly exists, had any more to do with this tragedy than if those poor people were killed and injured by a runaway cement truck. Yet everyone I know seems to be determined to make this connection. And argue about it.
Perhaps evidence will later show that “incivility” is also at fault. If so, that should be considered. If ,and when it is, not before.
There are issues here, that SHOULD be discussed. Gun control , better detection of dangerously unstable persons, protection of public officials from these. All are overshadowed, here and everywhere, by “incivility”.
I won’t go into why I think this is, except the human need to make sense meaning out of the senseless and the meaningless. There are other reasons that we could speculate on.
But I think the indictment of “incivility” (by which mostly everyone means right-wing talk show and internet incivility) may have some unanticipated consequences.
Most importantly, the message given to many in the right-wing, uncivil community, and their followers, is the same one “liberals” like myself often get from them. To wit, “Regardless of the absence of any evidence, we know what the truth is! Your incivility has caused this terrible act. You are guilty! Shame on you!” As a “liberal” , I pride myself on making decisions on evidence, not what “I know to be true.” I pride myself as part of the “reality-based community”, as Mr. Rove allegedly called us.
My question is, what is the likely impact on “civility” in public discourse when alleged practitioners of public incivility, and their fans are, accused, indicted, and convicted in the court of public opinion of a crime they apparently did not commit?
More, or less, public civility?
Why any disintegrating mentally ill person choses a particular path of violence is never going to be easy to figure out. Its not unreasonable to assume that the present political climate played an indirect role, and use this as an opportunity to discuss ways to reduce the heat of the present political discourse for the good of the country. That doesnt mean that Sarah Palin or any particular person or statement caused this guy to lose it. In fact even if it turns out that this guy fixated on some particular political celebrity it wouldnt be that persons fault.
James, I’m really glad you decided to argue “need”. Nowhere in the Constitutions 2nd Amend. does the word “need” appear. Whats more “need” has little to do with much of what we enjoy. Gays do not need to call their union a marriage, in fact they don’t “need” to marry at all. No one “needs” to drive, it’s just convenient. We don’t “need” health care programs, we want them. “Want” and “need” are 2 different things. You don’t “need” a gun. Fine. I do. In fact, I need/want lots of them. Why? Because it’s a hobby for me. I enjoy repairing them, making them shoot little teeny groups with home cast bullets I reloaded myself for pennies. I use my guns for the farm, for sport, for a hobby and very occasionally for self defense or my property.
But, you don’t “need” a gun, so it goes to figure no one else does? That’s the height of arrogance, though I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way. I don’t drink or keep alcohol in my home. I don’t need it, it’s dangerous, tens of thousands suffer and die each year from alcohol, a substance whose only use is to kill brain cells and cause people to loose control. I used to drink but I don’t need to anymore. It should be outlawed!
I think we’ve done this before……
Phan, there are already volumes of laws on the books that are supposed to prevent gun crime and accidents, 28,000 gun laws according to some reports. The limits are already in place! Like I noted in another post- Federal Law prohibits anyone with a mental health issue from obtaining a gun of any kind legally and many states seize the guns of the mentally unstable. The local sheriff KNEW this guy was a nut job and yet he was walking the streets. So, how did he get the gun? Was it obtained illegally like so many guns used in crimes? If not, why wasn’t the proper work done to ensure he wasn’t in possession of any weapons? I asked these same questions when one of my co-workers got shot a few years back after watching the local mental health service play CYA for their lack of action. Nothing new here.
Bret – there are people who feel they should be able to drink and drive (and do). But, we have lots of laws against it because drunk drivers endanger others. But still people drive drunk and we still try to come up with ways to stop them. I suppose a difference is that some people can carry guns around safely, whereas very few can reliably drive drunk. We would still all be much safer if no one carried guns around except the police. We could still make better laws to deal with guns. We certainly have rules for hunters and gun safety. We could make much more stringent rules for people who wanted to carry around concealed small arms. We could make guns more difficult to be obtained by gangsters (more expensive etc).
What we cant do very well is come up with better ways to deal with the mentally ill.
JDM says: “This blog would be a boring place, Mayflower, if all you got to hear was a bunch of people high-fiving you and agreeing with one point of view.”
I think JDM nails it here. Civility is not entertaining, and real America is all about entertainment. Nobody worth watching or listening to likes boring.
If having a gun is supposed to deter violence, it should be visible, not concealed. Maybe strap one or more six shooters around the waist or carry a rifle over the shoulder?
Americans do have a problem when it comes to behaving in a civil manner. This is primarily due to their inability to speak or understand sarcasm. Did I say clueless?
“I used to drink but I don’t need to anymore. It should be outlawed! ”
No offense Bret but I laughed when I read that. Do you hear yourself? To paraphrase, ‘Guns are okay because I like them but alcohol is bad so it should be banned’. Maybe I should get riled up over you “wanting to take my wine away” (we go through all of 2-3 bottles/year).
I never said guns should be entirely banned. I was only responding to your saying that everyone should be able to carry a gun everywhere all the time. If I meet some hunters when I’m hiking in the woods I’m not afraid of them or their guns. I don’t say they shouldn’t be allowed to have guns (I am opposed to trapping because I think it is cruel). I would likely stop and have chat with them if for no other reason than be certain they knew I was in the area and which way I was going.
BTW We tried the alcohol ban once. It was called “prohibition”. It didn’t work and a total gun ban wouldn’t either but that doesn’t mean that there don’t need to be more effective ways of controlling who can have guns and where they can be carried. Unfortunately that all or nothing attitude gets in the way of an effective debate over how to achieve a more effective means of keeping people like Mr. Loughner from legally buying guns.