A tragic scene of violence confronted the American public on Jan. 8. A U.S. House Representative, Gabrielle Giffords, was assaulted in a shooting rampage that claimed the lives of 6 victims and wounded 14 others. In the aftermath of this tragedy, a political blame game has ensued. The debate has split sharply on ideological lines, with many liberals accusing right wing groups for inciting violence while conservatives have defended the political rhetoric as an unrelated act of free speech. Some critics have associated the killing with inflammatory rhetoric and a political climate that has become increasingly hostile, while others have dismissed the shooting as a singular act of a mentally disturbed man. Others have denounced such insinuations as an act of political exploitation, while some have called the debate justified.
When asked about the political implications of the act, J. Harry Wray, a political science professor at DePaul said, “I think it is rare that these responsibilities are equally shared. In the sixties there was more violent rhetoric in some segments of the political left. Today, the preponderance of violent rhetoric comes from some segments of the right.It is part of the rhetoric of numerous political candidates, and it is, in part, promoted by the systematic demonization of the President by the right wing media.Demonization is a step preceding violence”.
The motive for the killing is unknown, and the investigation is currently ongoing.
According to journalism professor, Bruce Evensen there is has been no demonstrated link between the shooting in Tucson and political rhetoric. “This is much more a story about what to do about gun violence and psychotics who can get guns even with background checks than it is a story about political rhetoric pushing people to violence,” Evensen said.
Mike Conklin, a communications instructor and former writer for the Chicago Tribune, added, “Any such characterizations are irrelevant and the result of political commentators, who are not reporters dealing with known facts, paid to generate comment throughout the spectrum.”
Critics have attacked Sarah Palin’s own “Take Back the 20” map of Democratic Congressional districts with what appears to be crosshairs of a rifle scope targeting districts who voted for the healthcare bill, including Rep. Gifford’s own.
Others say that the act may reflect a dissatisfaction of the current state of affairs in the American political spectrum.
Bruce Newman, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Political Marketing and a professor at DePaul, said, “The recent act is an undertone of the tremendous dissatisfaction in the country today-it goes beyond political rhetoric.”
“A lot of people are hurting in the current economy, Sarah Palin’s rise to the top is due to this situation, and many people turn to political leaders for help in turning the situation around,” Newman said. “The turnaround has been slow in this case.”
Critics have cited other examples of rhetoric that includes the former tea party opponent of Giffords, Jesse Kelly, who promoted a June 12 gun event on the Pima County Republican website that read, “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly”.
Despite the assumptions, the rise of violent threats in lieu of the heated debates over healthcare and other contentious issues has generated some concern.
Political professor Henry Wray said, “There has been a sharp increase in violent threats being made against politicians in the last year and a half, according to the FBI. People with guns and signs like, “I come in peace-this time,” regularly appeared at Tea Party rallies”, adding, “We shall see the extent to which this act was connected to that, but in this atmosphere the only surprise to me is that something like this has not happened earlier”.
Military references in relation to political campaigns has been nothing new, but this incident has once again questioned the appropriateness of such rhetoric in the public realm.
Professor Evensen said, “Political operatives and political parties have from our founding “targeted” oppositional groups..The vernacular of politicians and the press use military language and have for years. We talk about “campaigns” much in the manner of the “campaigns” of the Civil War era and afterward.”
Calls from both parties to tone down the political rhetoric were apparent, with all House legislation including the vote on repealing the healthcare bill postponed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor in order to “take whatever actions may be necessary in light of today’s tragedy”. Bruce Newman, states, “Political leaders have their own responsibility to themselves and the people they represent if they are in office to act ethically, responsibly and in a non inflammatory manner.. it should be expected that all political leaders should tone down their political rhetoric in light of the current situation.”
Although opinion is divided over this sensitive topic, the resounding message is one of sympathy for the victims of the tragedy and a strong condemnation of violence in a democratic system that prides itself on peaceful protest and constructive debate. Professor Wray, in response to what students should be mindful of, stated, “It is good to be passionate about politics. Politics matter. But none of us has a monopoly on truth, and it is possible to learn something from someone with whom one disagrees. Talk. Listen. Think”.