Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Timeout

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, January 10, 2011 2:36pm - 60 Comments

John Dickerson considers what should happen now.

Any speech now, from the president or a top Republican, would have to go beyond merely saying, “Tone down the rhetoric.” This doesn’t mean that sanitizing political speech is the answer. Passion is inevitable and even necessary. (Besides which, there’s no workable way to tamp it down. You can’t station a TSA agent at the front of every debate.)

Still, thinking first in terms of restraint rather than attack, in crafting a political message or in a political debate, might mean taking a breath before you assume the worst about your opponent’s motives. It might mean a pause to consider the danger of your own knee-jerk view of their ideas. Maybe they’re actually capable of reasonable thought.

In honor of the victims of the shooting, Congress will observe a moment of silence tomorrow afternoon. Fitting but insufficient. What we need is a permanent moment of restraint.

Tags: Arizona, democracy, discourse, Gabrielle Giffords, rhetoric, shooting, Tuscon

More by Aaron Wherry

gottabesaid

'Still, thinking first in terms of restraint rather than attack, in crafting a political message or in a political debate, might mean taking a breath before you assume the worst about your opponent’s motives. It might mean a pause to consider the danger of your own knee-jerk view of their ideas. Maybe they’re actually capable of reasonable thought.'

Something for politicians and political commentators of all stripes to consider. Very well said.
alfanerd

Civility in discourse is an end onto itself. But I still dont buy that this wacko would have been any less dangerous if politicians spoke about each other in nicer terms. In fact, this idea, seemingly widespread, is so insane I feel like Im in the twilight zone.

To quote Chris Rock: whatever happened to "CRAZY"?

After Columbine people blamed Marlyn Manson and video games.

Now people blame the "tone" of political rhetoric.

It's just as insane. I guess people need to feel that there is a reason behind this tragedy and that if we just control the right things, it will not happen again. I think its a coping mechanism. But its wrong: this guy was crazy, and he was going to do something like this regardless of the political climate.

Jan

While criticizing others for needing to find a reason, you have settled on one yourself – he's crazy. End of story. Move on. Real life is usually more complicated than this.

alfanerd

1. I did not criticize others for needing to find a reason. I suggested it was a coping mechanism. I did not intend it as a criticism. Now please dont go and shoot people on account of my heated rhetoric.

2. The guy was crazy – that much is clear from any cursory review of the stuff this guy was putting out on the net.

3. Saying he's crazy doesnt suggest its the end of the story.

4. If you're trying to nail this tragedy on Sarah Palin, you're a disgusting person.

Jan

You need to recognize your needing to blame it entirely on the psychological state of the shooter (which we don't even know – he seems to be a loon, but that is hardly a diagnosis). I don't own a gun and do not plan on purchasing one, no matter what you say, so relax. I don't believe I have mentioned Sarah Palin. I wouldn't blame her – I would suggest that she and her ilk may be a contributing factor. Calling me possibly a disgusting person is the type of rhetoric that is unnecessary in this discussion.

alfanerd

You would suggest that Palin and her "ilk" was a contributing factor?

And here we go. That was not too difficult. Scratch someone who claims this tragedy is the result of 'heated rhetoric' and you actually get someone who claims this tragedy is the result of 'heated rhetoric' by your political opponents. In other words, you're using this tragedy to make a political point. And this political point, might I add, is made without the slightest shred of evidence. That's disgusting.
D.D.S

you dug for that answer so you could get angry that someone is blaming Palin……she never even mentioned Palin…….interesting
alfanerd

I didnt dig very hard.

Besides I suspected from the first comment by Jan (M or F?) that Jan would be unhappy with the idea that craziness alone explained the shooting because it didnt lay blame on Jan's political opponents. Turns out my suspicions were bang on.

Using this tragedy for political gain is disgusting. Using this tragedy for political gain without the slightest shred of evidence is double-disgusting.
harebell

Actually nobody even mentioned Palin until you did.
All Jan said was that usually the situation is more complicated than that, and she is probably right.
alfanerd

Yeah I know and Jan took the bait big time. Why defend Jan? Jan thinks that Palin contributed to this. Im curious to know how, let Jan explain his/herself.
harebell

Contributed is different from responsible and as such the bar is lower.
Lots of things probably contributed to this, lax gun laws, a very divisive climate in the US, mental illness, 2nd amendment solutions etc. Some to a greater degree than others.
The rhetoric posing anybody who is against tea party talking points as a socialist trying to over throw the true America is very incendiary, just like a few decades ago calling anybody in a police uniform a fascist was unhelpful.
The pendulum has swung now so that the incendiary rhetoric comes mainly from the right today, note I said "mainly". Obama's gonna take your guns was I believe a huge rallying cry during the last elections. He wasn't but it scared folk enough for them to stock up. Death Panels is another example of a great electoral lie.
We have a huge problem now in politics everywhere in that it has become like a sports contest, folk have to support them through thick and thin. When politicians lie even their supporters need to call them on it. Honesty begin with the voters, if your MP is lieing then they are lieing. They are wrong. Unfortunately our hatred of the opposition is allowing us to overlook this.
Palin's use of eliminationist rhetoric was minor, Angle's was less so. It all lowered the bar on what could be deemed the correct way to respond to electoral differences.
frequent traveller

You fished for a particular statement from someone so you can smack them down? Way to be troll.
TimesArrow

http://theweek.com/article/index/210903/arizona-m…

Using this for poltical gain is disgusting including trying to shield Palin from taking responsibility for her political statements. Apparently her team has tried to spin those crosshairs and reload crap as surveyors symbols…interesting? and craven.
If i were to fire up a blog with crosshairs on my political opponent in this country with an exortation to "reload", you'd be outraged…and rightfully so.
alfanerd

Shielding Palin from the disgusting and sickening attacks of deranged morons is not "using this for political gain".

Whatever, they were crosshairs, and using this kind of "targeting" type language in politics is really old news.

With all the hatred and hysteria leveled at conservatives over the years, having a target symbol over potentially winnable races would not even cause me to bat an eyelid.
TimesArrow

Really! I'm a no expert on US politics so maybe you could outine a similar scenario where a Dem [or anyone] has targeted a Republican with violent symbolism?I'd add that i would have a similar view of someone targeting Palin with violent political symbolism.
alfanerd

From the Democratic Party: http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/DLC-Targe…

Im awaiting your outrage towards the Democrats with impatience!!!
TimmesArrow

not even poor taste.
alfanerd

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progress…

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
TimmesArrow

Disgusting…i've honestly not seen any of it until now, i wish i hadn't.
Jan

I am not claiming to know what caused the shooter to act, as you are. Obviously his mental health is central to his actions. But this wasn't a random attack – it was a pre-meditated atack on a politician. To not consider the political climate in which it occurred is just myopic. By the way, I am a woman,
alfanerd

So perhaps you'd like to clarify how is it that, as you would suggest, Palin and her ilk contributed to the attack.

gottabesaid

"Civility in discourse is an end onto itself. But I still dont buy that this wacko would have been any less dangerous if politicians spoke about each other in nicer terms."

I don't buy that this wacko would have been any less dangerous, either. However, if folks are going to look into the mirror and consider the wisdom of some of the violent, dehumanizing, 'wacko' things they say, that's a good thing. Some sober reflection by all parties, politicians and partisans is probably the only good thing that has or will arise out of this.

alfanerd

Seems like we're in agreement then.

D.D.S

Does that mean gottabesaid isn't "disgusting"?

chet

Of course your correct that he was crazy.

But as one commenter to Powerline notes:

"This immediate and cynical reaction by the Left to the Tucson shooting is proof (as if any more were needed) that it is fundamentally dishonest and that it will say or do almost anything to achieve the societal power it craves and that it feels it is entitled to."

danielmartin

So where were you when it came time to defend the muslim nation after a few 'crazy' people drove airplanes into office buildings? Yah, you are right that's an extreme comparison. How about when people started accusing their rivals of 'siding with the taliban' when they were asking questions of the government?
When a handful of people were found to have stolen money from a fairly decent nation-building program, did you limit your accusations to those charged, or were you among the group who labelled all members of one political party as 'thieves'? Did you tell Stockwell Day, Stephen Harper et al to wait to hear what evidence there was on a Canadian who was illegally taken by the CIA and flown to a middle east hellhole, or were you there accusing the gov't of the day that they were 'soft on terrorism'?
Ah now I get it. You just don't like it when those you love to label as 'lefties' cotton to your game… Tell it to the parents of a nine year old, chester.

TJCook

Talkingpointsmemo is working on a list of suggestions that might help misunderstood politicians avoid criticism in the future:

1. Refrain from telling supporters that winning the election may require active exercise of their "second amendment" rights.

2. Refrain from suggesting it's time for "armed revolution", even if Thomas Jefferson once kinda sorta suggested that.

3. Refrain from holding political fundraisers focused around use of automatic weapons, especially target practices with initials, name or images of your political opponent.

4. Refrain from telling supporters you want them to be "armed and dangerous."

5. Refrain from making campaign posters with opponent's head in gun sights.

6. Refrain from saying that bullets will work if ballots don't.

7. Suggest that supporters not bring weapons to opponents' political rallies.

Seems pretty reasonable. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01…

Emily

Boy, I'll go along with that. Unreal that this should all have to be spelled out, but this is the least they can do to end these shootings.
madeyoulook

Reasonable suggestions… for the avoidance of criticism.

As for this last weekend… does any reasonable person believe these seven (or any number of similarly-themed civil-discourse items) would have avoided the bloodshed?

Emily

Actually millions of Americans are making just that point. Stop making violent references and suggestions….there are people who will take you up on it.
TJCook

"does any reasonable person believe these seven (or any number of similarly-themed civil-discourse items) would have avoided the bloodshed? "

Does it matter? Isn't it inherently wrong for political leaders to talk like this?

Do we need absolute proof before we engage in a little introspection?

madeyoulook

As I said, for avoidance of criticism, it is a great idea.

TJCook

Well, if you read TPM for a while, you'll understand that they have a tongue-in-cheek style. In this case, the points are so painfully obvious that their "avoid criticism" characterization was intended as humorous understatement.

And the rest of what I said? Isn't a little introspection called for, regardless of the specifics of this case?
Emily

Those rules are followed in other countries and they don't have the shootings the US does.

Mind you, in other countries, they don't have to be spelled out like this either….people just use some discretion and common sense.
Emily

Introspection doesn't seem to be a popular idea on the right.
chet

Of course only the right need to consider the impact of extreme rhetoric.

See (a tiny snippet) of the examples I cite below, (not including Obama's "gun fight" reference or his comparing pol opponents to being "terrorists".
Emily

I'm sorry, but that tactic isn't working.

Fido

Mr. Wherry, those are some real good links. Thank you!
BGLong

Another cheerful compendium from the Peaceable Plutocracy ….

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-dem…

frobisher

Yikes. That's a lot of 'lone nuts'.

Richard_S_Argent

Just wanted to say that I absolutely love your completely random avatar (do they still call them that? I mean the picture you chose for your profile). It's awesome!

frobisher

It's a Brannock Device!

chet

Tying this tragedy in any way to political discourse is abhorrent.

Political discourse had nothing,

nothing,

to do with the murders.

Those trying to make political hay out of the murders are exhibiting the very sort of behaviour they purport to condemn.

Richard_S_Argent

Yes, we should just wait until someone with identifiable political motivations assassinates a politician. Until then, why bother? Introspection is such a waste of time.

chet

Except if you read the article's Wherry links to the "we" in introspection is "they" that is, those on the right.

No mention of Obama, "bringing a gun to a knife fight' or Dems using targets on a map, or the myriad others.

Another opportunity for the left to slime their political opponents.

Richard_S_Argent

Poor chiff, always the victim. Always.

chet

Actually the left is always sliming.

Always.
Selena

The right in the US uses ginned-up violent rhetoric to stir the base because its' the only thing they understand. They are simply not bright and/or perceptive enough to understand any nuanced argument. What more can you say about a group that worships a burned out alcoholic cokehead and think Mein Kampf (National Socialists) and the Communist Manifest are the same thing.

chet

The article by Krugman is a particularly disgusting attempt to utilize this horrible tragedy to attack one's political foes (by accusing them of tacitly being complicit in murder)

Here's some sanity from Reynolds in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703…
chet

And an apt quote from Jim Hoft:

"We already knew that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, left-wing, pro-Marx, antiflag, "quite liberal" lunatic.

Today we found out that he also wanted to kill cops.

Using the state-run media model, we can therefore draw two conclusions from this information:

1.) He must be a tea partyer
2.) It's Sarah Palin's fault"

TJCook

chiff, above: "Tying this tragedy in any way to political discourse is abhorrent. Political discourse had nothing, nothing, to do with the murders."

"Those trying to make political hay out of the murders are exhibiting the very sort of behaviour they purport to condemn. "

"Another opportunity for the left to slime their political opponents."

And then, out of the blue, ""We already knew that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was… "quite liberal"…"

If chiff was self-aware, his head would explode.

chet

Democrats openly talk in the context of Bush being murdered – hey, what's the problem:

"When Governor Bush was delivering his 2000 convention speech, Craig Kilborn, a CBS talk-show host, showed him on the screen with the words “SNIPERS WANTED.” Six years later, Bill Maher, the comedian-pundit, was having a conversation with John Kerry. He asked the senator what he had gotten his wife for her birthday. Kerry answered that he had taken her to Vermont. Maher said, “You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.” (New Hampshire is an early primary state, of course.) Kerry said, “Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” (This is the same Kerry who joked in 1988, “Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they’re to shoot Quayle.”) Also in 2006, the New York comptroller, Alan Hevesi, spoke to graduating students at Queens College. He said that his fellow Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, would “put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

burlivespipe

I dare say you are providing examples of comedians with poor taste in jokes. Jokes that certainly were at minimum in poor taste and outlandish. Kerry's joke didn't go over well and he didn't repeat it.
Are you comparing that to the daily enslaught of Faux News' and the talking radioheads of Gleck and Lush Rumbagh's schtick? Constantly they are on a vitrolic path, demonizing those who disagree with them, the government and the rightly elected president of the US. Those poor democratic supporters during the previous administration, who merely held up signs 'Not my president' or 'Save us from Bush' really should have thought of crosshairs because it wouldn't have mattered. Only provided you with another alibi… Lame chester.

Bernie

I hope chet has some sanitary wipes for cleaning off his keyboard this week.

Emily

LOL he's trying hard, but sinking fast.

Philanthropist

The shooter has been described as a 'Grammar Nazi', that's the only indication of his 'politics'. Perhaps use of the term 'Grammar Nazi' should be subject to censor by the proper authorities? And violators persecuted to the full extent of the law? A law like that might get shot down though, so a bunch of fascists would have to push it through.
Jan

It's been explained by his dislike of Mexicans. Immigration is a topic of total hysteria in Arizona.
Richard_S_Argent

"Politics is high stakes. And even when it isn't, it often feels like it is. There's a natural tendency, then, to wave the bloody shirt — to make the strongest and most maximalist argument possible in service of your case. And those arguments are often empirically accurate. Indeed, they may actually be understating the effects of the policy. But there's also a cost in letting too much pressure and too much fear build up within our politics. And though libertarians like Jack Shafer may lament this sort of self-policing, the reality is that a violent act that could be clearly traced to the rhetoric of certain leaders or groups would lead to much more damaging and coercive restrictions on political speech than anything people are considering now. Having this conversation when no one has blood on their hands is far preferable to having it when someone does. And though political assassinations are rare in American politics, they are by no means unheard-of."

Ezra Klein
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/…
chet

The esteemed Dr. Hanson hits the nail on the head in a perfect article, here's the last paragraph:

"…the outrage of Daly, Krugman, Sullivan, and others is partisan and transparently self-serving. Paul Krugman would have more credibility on the topic of extreme rhetoric had he written a column a few years ago warning Americans that it was one thing to oppose George W. Bush, but quite another to publish a novel envisioning the assassination of the president, or to award first prize at the Toronto Film Festival to a “docudrama” constructing the shooting of Bush, or to compare one’s opponents (as Al Gore and John Glenn did) to “brownshirts” and “Hitler.” Did we ever hear from Andrew Sullivan to cool the sick rhetoric about Sarah Palin, in worries that his incessant rumor-mongering about her supposed faked pregnancies had reached the point of dehumanization?

If crazed gunmen are sadly a periodic characteristic of American culture, so are political vultures who scavenge political capital as they pick through the horrific violence."

Here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256697/pol…
burlivespipe

Yeah, i'll sure waste my time with the national review link, chester. While I wouldn't want any laws to dictate the language or tenor of political debate, I certainly would like some introspection and considerable more awareness of what the chosen words could infer… It's long been apparent that Chester's party of choice doesn't believe in personal responsibility, nor in public action for the public good unless it begins at his doorstep first. Putting firm restrictions and licensing on long guns crosses a line for him, just as believing that offering a dying MP an "incentive" for his vote is nothing more than due diligence on his team's part.
How it hurts the right to return to sane, civil debate in the US is beyond me… I'm sure chester will have some longwinded response once his mom brings him some cookies…