There Are Consequences To Violent Political Rhetoric ("Don't Retreat, Reload")

As long as there has been a tea party movement in this country, numerous members of the movement have extended a lot of effort to beat back accusations that it was engaging in violent political rhetoric and activities. When a report from the Bush Homeland Security Department (prepared prior to the inauguration of Pres. Obama) warned of an increase in violence by right-wing fringe groups and militias, the tea party and Republican leadership were quick to attack the report and argue that, in fact, it was liberals who were the violent ones. Though there was no explicit criticism of mainstream conservatives in the report, it was Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the usual suspects that came in out in force against the report, and argued it was the Obama Administration who created it (it wasn't).

The report, entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, did not single out the tea party as it did not exist at the time. In fact, it defined right wing as, "mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." Some conservatives even threatened to sue the DHS. The end result of the reaction from the right to the report was that it was largely ignored, and the warnings it gave were forgotten.

The media, essentially afraid of its own shadow and loathe to criticize conservatives, accepted the right's dismissal of the report and failed to follow up. When the debate over health care reform got underway, almost all of the warnings from that DHS report came to fruition. Angry conservatives, overheated by lies told to them by talk radio hosts, and tacitly encouraged by Republican members of Congress, began to organize attacks on Democratic members of Congress. The financial arm of the tea party movement, a lobbying organization called Freedom Works, began distributing information advising tea partiers to attend town halls by Democrats and advising them how to disrupt the meetings and rattle the members. The tactics were remarkably successful, and fed the media narrative that the country was "furious" about more people getting access to health care. Angry right-wingers began bringing guns to town halls and, in one high profile instance, tea partiers brought automatic weapons to a speech by President Obama. This was condemned by the left as an explicit threat, the right dismissed the criticism and rambled on about the Second Amendment.

Somehow, an attempt to make our health care system more accessible to those who have been denied access, was spun as evil by the right. Discussing end of life care became the government killing your grandma. Increasing access to private insurance became a "government takeover." The Affordable Care Act became "Obamacare." The anger boiled over in the tea party when they realized they had lost, and some spat on members of Congress when they approached the Capitol to vote. Acts of violence and personal threats towards Democratic members of Congress briefly became the norm.

Sarah Palin "targeted" Gabrielle Gifford and other Democrats

The health care debate was where it started, but it hardly stopped after the Affordable Care Act became law. The relentless attacks on President Obama and Democrats extended into almost every issue, even non-controversial ones like the president speaking to school children or stopping childhood obesity. Right-wing media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh frequently characterized any initiative taken by the duly elected President of the United States as inherently illegitimate, un-American, and designed to destroy the American way of life. Beck is the worst offender; and his baseless claims of racism on the part of the president and his silly warnings about Communists inside the Administration and preferential treatment toward Democratic districts in the distribution of federal dollars fueled the increasing paranoia on the right. And if your enemy is evil and illegitimate, compromising with them is out of the question. It became standard operating procedure for the right to oppose anything at all proposed by the Democrats - even bills they had sponsored in the past.

Predictability, when it became election season, the rhetoric became even more heated. Perhaps the two most disturbing examples of violent rhetoric being used to garner votes came from Nevada's Sharon Angle and Alaska's Sarah Palin. On more than one occasion, Ms. Angle, running for the Senate in Nevada, discussed using "second amendment remedies" to deal with the Congress if unsuccessful in the election. Sarah Palin, through her political action committee, SarahPAC, created an ad campaign that utilized gun sights to "target" certain members of Congress.  In personal appearances, Palin frequently denied her rhetoric was violent, and often told her rabid supporters not to retreat, but to "re-load."

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)

At the time, the ads were criticized, but that criticism was dismissed by Palin and the media that loves her. One of those targeted in the ads was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Ms. Giffords was shot in an assassination attempt two days ago while meeting with her constituents at a supermarket.

The true motives of the attempted assassin may never be known, and the man is clearly disturbed. However, his ties to far right, white supremacist organizations are beginning to come to light, as is his multi-year angry obsession with the Congresswoman. There is no way to argue that his exposure to angry rhetoric, his questionable mental state, and easy access to guns were not all contributors to the tragedy. This man bought his gun last November, and has been plotting this attack since then. This was a premeditated attack on Giffords and not merely a crazy person just being crazy. Something could have been done. At the very least, a man who was rejected from the military and kicked out of college for his disturbing behavior should not have such easy access to guns. I would hope that is a non-controversial statement, but in today's political environment, it probably isn't.

The point of this post is not to attack every member of the tea party or say all inflamed rhetoric is on one side. But, over the last three years, the rhetoric has become increasingly violent, and it has almost exclusively been coming from the right. A fundamental lack of respect for dissenting opinions has become the norm in the American right. The "will of the people" is often cited by those in the tea party as their motivation. But why was the "will of the people" ignored by the tea party after the 2008 election? When the tea party dismissed the democratic process and refused to accept the results of a losing election, how many liberals began threatening Republicans for ignoring their will?

I hope this event and its aftermath will force the more extreme elements to tone it down. I also hope that the issue of gun control (which has not been seriously addressed in decades) will be looked into again. People like Saturday's assassin should never have had such easy access to a gun.

Good luck to Rep. Giffords in her recovery, and deep condolences to the victims and their families.