More Thoughts on the Arizona Shootings

These thoughts by Timothy Egan and these from Jonathan Chait @ TNR add to the current discussion about the effect of incendiary or outright hate speech. The piece from TNR raises a good point: to say that discourse should become more civil and less incendiary is different from trying to "limit free speech". There's a difference, a crucial difference, between norms (voluntary, governed by social convention) and laws (enforced by the coercive power of the state). I don't want to limit free speech, which is to say I don't think that the government should normally control what people can say. However, by the use of social norms, I suggest that we can and should limit such speech. How? Don't listen to it (e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, who get paid according to their ratings). I wouldn't let someone use my blog space to spew hatred or invective. Remember, "free speech" is a matter of legal rights that limit government action and not a compulsory requirement for individuals or private entities.

I truly believe that spirited public discourse can be fruitful in a democracy. However, invective, calling into question the legitimacy of an adversary, grade-school level name-calling--all of that is unnecessary and stupid. (How's that for invective!)

Finally, we are influenced by words. Some--especially the mentally limited or deranged--more than others. We like to think that "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me". But you know that's not true. Please write in if you've never been cut by words. Please write if you have reacted viscerally to some report that has later proven false or incomplete. Let's face it, humans, we're all suckers for words. We need to have our crap-detectors on 24/7, but it's not easy. Think of the incredible karma for words, how they are all mustard seeds. Some blow away in the wind, some grow a bit and die, but some, in the right conditions, come to fruition, for good or ill. Please! Sow carefully.

Douthat's Counter-Point to Krugman

Because I want to be fair, and because Douthat makes some interesting points, I want to link to his article in counter-point to Krugman's. I still think that that deranged minds aren't so deranged that they act randomly. Irrationally? Yes, but not randomly. The Oswald and Bremer cases are thoughtful counter-points, but I still think that the political atmosphere affects such occurences, more than just a little. Thoughts?

Krugman on the Arizona Shootings

I wish that I didn't think Krugman right about this. I wish we could say that we're experienced an isolated, deranged soul committing a random act of violence. Yes, a deranged soul, but no, it was not a random act of violence. The shooting was aimed at a political figure. Although it came from a deranged individual, the targets were not entirely random--he choose a political target. Someone like this individual, and others before him, act out in a way that they think will resonate in the wider culture.

I also have to say that Krugman is correct when he eschews any pretense that both Left and Right stand equal in invective. The "left", which means, I think, those who adhere to the values of the Enlightenment (and which can certainly include Republicans and conservatives) value reason, democracy, and resist the use of violence. A few--but a very vocal few--on the Right promote fear and violence. Even during the Bush Administration, when from the point of view of many on the Left, our nation's institutions were deeply harmed and our values degraded, we saw no widespread turn to talk of violence and resistance. No, generally in America, violence and fear come from the Right. We see it again. Leaders in the Republican Party need to speak out loudly and clearly against it. Failing to do so may constitute good politics (I hope not), but it clearly constitutes a moral failure.