By Seth Richardson
The blogosphere is aflame with accusation and vituperation flying from left and right over the shooting in Arizona on Saturday. The political punches and low-blows are coming so hard and fast I’m expecting Mike Tyson to show up and bite someone’s ear off at any moment.
So who is responsible for the killing of six people and the wounding of 12 more?
Sarah Palin did this! shouts one. Rush Limbaugh is responsible! cries another. Glenn Beck is dangerous! wails a third. The shooter read the Communist Manifesto, so it’s Francis Fox Piven and the Marxists who are responsible! blurts someone else.
“I think it’s the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised!” proclaims Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in a thinly-veiled swipe at Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
But who’s to blame, really?
Maybe it’s all Martin Scorcese’s fault. “Martin Scorcese?” you ask, “Why Martin Scorcese?”
Well, perhaps he’s to blame for inciting violent attacks on politicians because he made a motion picture called “Taxi Driver.” After all, this may not be the first time that “Taxi Driver” has been cited as a motive for an attempted political assassination.
In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. tried to kill President Ronald Reagan, and had previously stalked President Jimmy Carter, in a deranged attempt to win the favor of actress Jodi Foster, who played 12-year-old prostitute Iris in the film.
Like Travis Bickel, the lead character played by Robert DeNiro, Hinckley tried to use the murder of a political figure as a way to attain fame…well, perhaps infamy… as a way to rise out of obscurity and fulfill a narcissistic need for attention that had nothing whatever to do with political ideology.
In the film, Bickel’s attempt to shoot a presidential candidate is motivated by his spurned romantic advances towards a pretty young campaign worker, Betsy (played by Cybill Shepherd). Bickel then turns his narcissistic need for attention towards Iris, whom he meets in a chance encounter. Eventually he murders three people, including Iris’s pimp and a corrupt police detective in order to save young Iris from a life of prostitution.
In Scorcese’s film, Bickel escapes justice for his murderous impulses and he’s lionized as a hero because the people he killed were scum. In the real world, Bickel would have been arrested and prosecuted for his vigilante killing spree.
What moral does Scorcese impart to sane persons with this fairy-tale ending? Who knows? What moral does it impart to the insane? Well, in Hinckley’s case, a moral as deranged as his obsession with Jodi Foster.
What about the Arizona shooter? How many times did he watch “Taxi Driver?” Was he motivated to attain the same sort of deranged fantasy fame that Bickel achieved?
Inquiring minds want to know…
If so, is Martin Scorcese now to be held responsible for motivating two political killings? Precisely this charge was levied against him after the Reagan shooting, and the rebuttal is the same now as it was then; No, Mr. Scorcese is not responsible for the deranged fantasies of anyone who happens to watch his film.
Neither are Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Van Jones or Francis Fox Piven responsible for the conduct of people, deranged or otherwise, who listen to them.
Free speech is a dangerous thing, but as a society we value it and protect it because the benefits to be gained by a free marketplace of ideas, no matter how objectionable or inflammatory, far, far outweigh the tyranny and oppression that is required to suppress unpopular or supposedly “harmful” speech.
Just as we must tolerate the existence of firearms in our society because the benefits we reap from an armed citizenry exceed the dangers we face from the existence of firearms, we must tolerate speech that some find “vitriolic” or “bigoted.”
On the other hand, no speech, no matter how vitriolic, hateful or inflammatory, justifies an act of violence by anyone. We will not excuse those who commit violence by shifting the blame to those who advocate violence. All will be held responsible for their own actions.
In this tragic case, the responsibility lies only with a deranged and narcissistic young man who, like Travis Bickel and John Hinckley, decided that a life of obscurity was a poor substitute for an eternity of infamy.
© 2011 Altnews
I don’t care which side the inflammatory rhetoric comes from. Open space is right that words, especially from important people, can have consequences. Obviously, the person solely responsible is the shooter himself, but read some of the posts after columns and letters to the editor to hear some of the vitriol that’s proliferating. When writers say that children are “brainwashed” by their liberal parents and teachers, they indicate that they believe opinions have impact. That’s why we need cool heads, not heated, angry posturing. We have all these people complaining about the government and society, but none of them have any positive suggestions. (By the way, what are “hoplophobes”? I get “phobes, but what is “hoplo”?)
Words do have power. Political rhetoric is particularly powerful, as is religious rhetoric. So what? To imply that one must censor one’s opinion in order to avoid inflaming the emotions of a deranged person is to call for least-common-denominator debate. That serves no one but the Progressives, who don’t want any discussion of politics, and don’t want any inflamed emotions, because that tends to result in people coming to understand what Progressivism has in store for them, which is nothing good. Progressives want us all to not worry, be happy, and ignore all the nattering nabobs of negativity so that the Progressive intellectual elite can rule us through the Administrative State without bothering our pretty little heads with all the complexities of governance and politics that only Progressives are smart enough to understand.
Hogwash. Utter tripe. Political rhetoric is, has always been, and will always be the rhetoric of emotion. That’s how people are induced to participate in politics in the first place. They have to care about something passionately before they are willing to step into the conflagration. Absent the rhetoric, people become complacent and dull-witted, and when that happens, great evil always follows, because tyrants and demagogues rely upon the stupidity and disinterest of the people for their power.
Yes, words have power, and that’s a good thing. And NO ONE is responsible for the actions of another in response to exercises of free speech, no matter how vitriolic or inflammatory. We are all responsible for controlling our own behaviors, and none of us can claim dispensation or forgiveness for our bad acts in response to the words or writings of others.
Do we need cool heads? Yes, of course we do. Shall cool heads be mandated? Of course not.
Keep in mind that Paul Revere riding through the night shouting “The British are coming!” was inflammatory rhetoric, as were the writings of the Founders prior to the Revolutionary War.
One man’s inflammatory, seditious speech is another man’s proclamation of liberty.
I accept absolutely no responsibility for the actions of a madman, nor should anyone else.
“Hoplophobe” is a term coined by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, guru of armed personal defense. It’s derived from the word “Hoplite,” who were citizen-soldiers of ancient Greece. The meaning is “those who fear an armed citizenry/citizen.”
This man was neither deranged nor was he likely narcicisstic.
Likely, he has no interest in Taxi Driver, Rush Limbaugh or Sara Palin.
He just shot a thief in the act.
Tyrranicide is not murder.
Are you saying the people the shooter killed were tyrants?
I am not intending to suggest that I believe he killed any tyrants.
I doubt he wanted to kill anyone but the Congresswoman.
NPD is a specific disorder that is created early on and usually manifests itself long before this and usually to the detriment of animals.
“Deranged” requires psychosis that I have not yet read about.
I think this man is on the fringe and feels victimized.
I think he has no emotional loyalty to anyone and takes everything he’s told literally.
My post is not meant to suggest that this man’s actions, are justified. I suggest that he believes that he is the victim of a tyrannical government.
There are many, and I am one, who suggest that his argument has merit.
I do not agree with his methods. I think that he should fry for his methods.
As for his argument, why is it more of a crime to murder a federal employee than it is to murder a nine year old child?
“why is it more of a crime to murder a federal employee than it is to murder a nine year old child?”
With this sentiment I agree. The notion that somehow a federal official is more important than a citizen completely reverses the proper order of things.
Federal employees are public servants. They are also citizens. There is no greater moral import to one than to the other.
If a moral equivalency is to be drawn, it should be drawn at the line between the innocence of a child and the danger that we all, as citizens or public servants, face from crime.
I don’t think it’s “worse” or “better” when someone is killed. One death of an innocent person is not more acceptable than the death of another, and we should not make such distinctions.
Public officials are due no greater protection from crime than any other citizen, including the President. No public official is indispensible or essential. All can easily be replaced. This is not meant to imply that we shouldn’t care if they are killed, only that our system is based on the premise that ordinary citizens are the best representatives, and that we have no elite ruling class without whom society cannot function.
And we must resist creating a privileged class of elite rulers who are entitled to greater protection or perquisites than the least among us, because down that path lies a return to aristocracy and elitism.
The risk of assassination is one of the risks of being involved in politics. If that risk is too great, don’t get involved in politics. Or, don’t polarize your constituency to the point that someone wants to kill you.
In the end, a politician has no greater right to protection than anyone else. It’s up to them to protect themselves, just as it is for everyone else.
I cannot agree. She was a duly-elected Congressional Representative, and by all accounts was quite centrist and obedient to the Constitution. In any event, she was not holding office without authorization from the People, and I would not have hesitated to defend her with my own life, just as, believe it or not, I wouldn’t hesitate to defend Barack Obama’s life with my own.
So long as government remains responsive to the will of the People as expressed by their uncorrupted vote, we get what we deserve, and we have to suck it up and wait for the next election to straighten things out. On the day that any elected official defies the will of the People or the constraints of the Constitution and becomes a tyrant, then force is justified in defense of the Constitution. We, the People do not owe our allegiance to any particular inhabitant of the White House or the Congress, we owe our allegiance to one another and the Constitution, and they are what we must defend with our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
To be clear, I am not advocating murder.
I suggest that the Constitution is not in effect. I am proposing that the rule of law upon which our Constitution is based is not in effect and is allowing our Constitution to be re-interpreted.
It may truly be impossible to comply with every law to which we are subject. It is certainly impossible to know every law to which one is subject.
Furthermore, the law is written to have impacts on one set of legal society and not other sets of legal society.
By law we fracture our society into factions when either of these problems exist.
I do not believe our republic exists. We have replaced it with a democracy.
Our democracy is now at the mercy of any regime that can get itself elected.
They don’t even call themselves representatives anymore. Now they are ‘leaders’ or ‘lawmakers’.
I don’t suggest we start shooting lawmakers. However, I do not see a way back to liberty and justice without bloodshed.
You really have that little of an understanding of cause and effect? You think our actions, and our words don’t influence others, Seth? Is that what you tell yourself to get yourself off the hook in life?
Nor is this about limiting free speech .. It’s about civility and tact, reason and restraint … things lost on so many these days. And it’s a damn shame. To borrow from a line in Jurassic Park, it’s not about whether we can, but whether we should.
And yet here we are facing a moment calling for national reflection, and you just can’t get beyond your partisan self. It’s really sad how cut from humanity and enslaved you are.
I certainly hope our words influence others, otherwise what’s the point in exercising free speech. However, each person is responsible for his or her own actions, and is never responsible for the actions of others in response to exercises of free speech. Civility and tact have their place, but so do fiery rhetoric and inflammatory statements.
What Progressives want from this “moment of national reflection” is shame, silence and apology from their political opponents. Well, they’re not going to get it from me, and neither are you. No one is to blame for this tragedy but the shooter. Period. Attempting to shift the blame in ANY way, to the left or the right, is pure political hay-making.
I reject and repudiate the claim that political speech can ever be held responsible for anyone’s actions, because to so maintain is to excuse the actions of those who would resort to unjustified violence to attack others. That cannot be permitted.
History is full of examples where words redefined perceptions, fomenting hatred for entire races and cultural groups, leading to riots, wars and genocide. Hatred is not born in a vacuum. It is an idea planted. I’m really surprised you have so little understanding of this.
Sorry, Openspace. No sale.
Nothing you say or do can cause me to commit murder.
What you say or do is on you.
How I act or react is on me.
That responsibility is mine and I will fight for it. Because I choose to.
The left is saying that right-wing commentators on TV and radio spurred this nut into action. I just watched an interview with one of his former college Algebra professors who said he, the professor, feared for his life every time he wrote something on the chalkboard facing away from the class, feared that the nut would shoot him in the back. Eventually, the professor had him removed from class.
As you point out in your article, ANYTHING, perhaps an old Lassie rerun could have set this one off. I think as more is known about him, the more absurd the left’s accusations will sound. I just hope this tragedy doesn’t have any real effect on free speech.
As always, nice article, Seth.
Thanks Jim. But you can depend on two things: The left will continue to blame the right’s “inflammatory” rhetoric in an attempt to shame them into silence using Alinsky’s tactics, and there will be loudly-heard arguments from the hoplophobes calling for a renewed “assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding device” ban.
I’d make book on that.
But the real story is the woman who grabbed the shooter’s spare magazine from him as he tried to reload.
That’s my next column: “Don’t just stand there, DO SOMETHING!”
Right and right again, Seth.
I look forward to reading the next column as always.
No, lizrdfishr. Seth is not right.
He is opinionated, which is fine, and you may agree with him, but no one is EVER “right” when it comes to voicing an opinion or believing in a religion or preaching a philosophy.
Don’t confuse a man with an opinion with a speaker of truth.