I know, it's a terrible way to start out any blog, let alone one with such a relatively loose idea behind it, but I was struck but this occurrence in Tucson, AZ, and had to share my thoughts with someone, at least. And in this instance, that someone is you, readers, whomever you are.
So, first, the story:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona
Now, this is a tragedy in and of itself. I'm not a very religious person, but the loss of a human life; of any human life, saddens me greatly. And while Rep. Giffords has been reported to be on the way to recovery (as of this posting), others were killed in the crossfire including, apparently, a nine-year-old child and senior District Judge John M. Roll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010802422.html?hpid=topnews).
But the question is, why does this bother me so? Well, take a look at this: http://www.businessinsider.com/gabrielle-giffords-was-on-sarah-palins-hit-list-2011-1
You'll see that Rep. Giffords is on this list. Also of note, the original website (www.takebackthe20.com), has been taken down. Go ahead, try to link to it. See?
So, anyway, my point. I don't blame Palin and her ilk for the attack on Giffords. Unless given compelling evidence to the contrary, I try to think the best of people, even if I do think them fairly stupid, like Mrs. Palin. But this kind of propaganda could clearly have led to this kind of outcome! I know it's a bit of slippery slope to assume that if you put crosshairs over a representative's district (which is, admittedly, not a direct reference to the person him/herself), someone is going to pull a gun and start shooting. But the inference must be acknowledged and safeguarded against! I have a Bachelor's in Psych which focused mainly on research methodology; I don't know the first thing about politics, and I grasp that! Yes, the level of precaution I imply may seem over the top, given the catchy-ness of the campaign (not to mention the attention-grabbing potential of the imagery), but there is a limit to which we can use violent metaphors in everyday life. A "war" on drugs is one thing. A "war" on specific representatives? You're simply asking for something like the Giffords incident to take place.
Basic psychology, nay, basic common sense states that the group-mind is one of the stupidest animals on the planet. Get enough people listening long enough, they'll buy anything you're selling. And that, ironically, is the strategy that people like Palin implement in their campaigns. They say the right things to the right people, and suddenly you have movements like the Tea Party. Hell, it's what any good politician does. And who knows? Maybe they even believe in what they're preaching (perish the thought).
But all of this is trumped by one simple rule: it should never come to violence. When we allow ourselves to be pushed to the point of wanting to commit an violent act on someone who opposes us, we've regressed to the level of the animals we so proudly hold ourselves above. Also, as stupid at this rhetoric sounds to me (and it does sound stupid), are we no better than the terrorists we're all so afraid of? Is this level of violence not an act of terrorism as well? If we start acting like this, don't the terrorists win? If terrorism is the act of placing enemies in a state of panic and fear, I believe this sort of action clearly demonstrates the fundamentals of the -ism.
What I'm looking forward to hearing is the testimony of the young man, Mr. Loughner, as he explains his motivations. Certainly nothing he says will excuse his actions, but I'm interested nonetheless. Maybe he even was coerced by the ideas of people like Sarah Palin.
At the very least, it makes for a good plot line for a primetime TV drama. You hear that, Law & Order? I'm talking to you!
