The circus that is the political arena often distracts us from the fact that lawmakers often have very high-pressure jobs dealing with angry constituents, a fact sadly made clear by the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), critically wounding her and killing six others, including a 9-year-old and a judge. Some have blamed the shooting on violent rhetoric used by Republicans, most notably the crosshairs that Sarah Palin put on Giffords’ district on a 2010 election roadmap. However, correlation does not imply causation, so is the shooting correlated to or caused by the rhetoric?

On the surface, it is entirely predictable how Democrats and Republicans have taken a stance on the attempted assassination of a Democratic legislator. The former blamed the rhetoric and atmosphere of political tension and the latter cast the shooting as the isolated workings of a madman. But this also makes sense on a deeper, ideological level. Since Democrats pin success and failure more on external, societal factors, they would naturally pin blame on a highly partisan environment. Meanwhile, the individualistic Republican ideology would see the shooting as shooter Jared Loughner’s problem and no one else’s.

But beyond Congress’s pointless philosophical drabbles, the facts certainly go in favor of the Republicans. The most significant piece of evidence favoring the deranged-man hypothesis would be an envelope that Loughner scribbled assassination plans on back in 2007, before the recession, health care battle and the violent rhetoric associated happened. In addition, interviews from those who knew him repeatedly painted a picture of a social outcast, drug user, and someone with extremist views on government. In short, not the mentally stable sort of chap.

However, this doesn’t let violent rhetoric off the hook either. Consider the 1960s, a time with lots of social and political upheaval, inflamed tensions, and lots of shootings: Kennedy- John and Bobby- King, and Malcolm X were all assassinated during this decade. While some (Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s killer) were lone operators, others were part of extremist organizations (Malcolm X was murdered by a member of the nation of Islam) or were externally motivated (Bobby Kennedy’s killer shot him due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- some things never change). Clearly, most political assassinations are externally motivated, and it only takes one nutty Tea Partier taking gun metaphors literally for more such incidents to occur.

I think President Obama’s quote sums the incident’s significance up eloquently- “it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy- it did not- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.” While there is no proof that the shooter was influenced by Palin or Beck, the event should be a turning point for American lawmakers and citizens alike to commit to political debate in a constructive, civil manner and, as Obama states, “not in a way that wounds”- sometimes, as we saw in the 1960s, literally.


(Photo: dhlynsky)