Rep. Giffords, Violence, and Moral Culpability

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, I believe another discussion of violent rhetoric is in order. 

First off: no one is saying that Sarah Palin, Jesse Kelly, or the Tea Party Movement pulled the trigger.  No one is demanding these people be found guilty of any legal wrongdoing.  We are not blaming the act, in its entirety, on anything said by Glenn Beck or another Fox News talking head.  Though, I'm sure the above people/organizations will find a way to spin it so that it sounds like we are accusing them of such, just like Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that pro-choice groups said he was responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in 2009. They will claim that we are "exploiting the tragedy" for "political gain," that we are just looking for a new way to demonize the all-powerful Tea Party Movement, all the while excusing themselves 100% from believing that anything they have said or done could have helped to foster an environment where someone would commit such an act.

No, Sarah Palin did not necessarily say "go shoot someone" with her crosshairs map.  Jesse Kelly did not technically endorse gunning down Rep. Giffords when he said "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office ... Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."  Glenn Beck has not been endorsing actual gun violence with his continued rhetoric of "taking back the government by force."  Not a single one of these individuals ran up to Giffords and pulled the trigger, nor did they personally put Loughner up to the task.  But that doesn't mean they have not helped to cultivate an environment where something like this could happen.  Does it mean they are legally liable and should be charged as accessories to murder?  No.  Does it mean they should be taken to task for their role in fostering such an environment through continued violent and inflammatory rhetoric?  Absolutely.

We must be guarded when we use phrases like "isolated incident," as in truth there is no such thing.  Each and every individual, especially those who would go so far beyond the customary range of human behavior, acts in response to social cues.  Not one of us lives in a vacuum free from societal influence, and while we cannot (and will not) claim that Sarah Palin is legally liable for Sunday's shooting, we can (and must) discuss the concept of moral culpability.

It is indeed an "ultra-liberal" way of thinking, though I shutter to use the L word here.  Indeed, it is a manner of thinking that leads us to ask why the high school drop-out robbed the convenience store, why the single mother sold her body for cash, why the student drugged and raped his date, and of course, why the young man unloaded an automatic weapon at an Arizona constituents event.  The answers give us some insight into the wrongdoer's life, giving us a bit of sympathy for their situation, if only for a moment.

In turn, we are labeled "bleeding-heart" and "soft on crime."  However, nothing could be further from the truth: while we ask why, we don't do it to excuse the crime itself.  We ask these questions because we know that there is no such thing as an "isolated incident."  We ask because we know that there will be others in the same situation, and those others are going to be inclined to behave in a similar manner.  We ask because we know that we as a society can do better, because we're not prepared to believe that some people are "just bad eggs." 

To say that some are "just bad eggs" is like saying "girls just like pink," or "boys just like toy cars."  We know that's bullshit, that girls like pink and boys like cars because they're told to, and that their budding preferences are reinforced by parents, television, friends, etc.  The same goes for people like Loughner, people who might already be "unstable" and frustrated, and then just need to interpret an influential figure's words as the go-ahead for violence.  This is something the Palins of the world don't seem to have figured out, or at least don't want to admit: actions have consequences.

It is never okay to use violent rhetoric against another person, no matter how innocuous it may seem.  This is all very easily spun as "they think Palin caused the shooting," but whatever.  I would rather be a "bleeding-heart" who asks why than the kind of person who incites violence then turns the other way when something tragic happens.