The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.
This is a line from Wilhelm Stekel quoted in The Catcher in the Rye. I wish I had held on to it, but when I was a freshman in college, I recall reacting fiercely to this in an essay. I recall feeling at the time like it robbed me of something essential, something having to do with the right to go out in a blaze of glory if I chose. Forty has a hard time of remembering twenty, so I can’t explain, let alone justify, that feeling; but I do remember that it was strong, and it was visceral.
I am reminded of that feeling when I’ve been reading online the reaction of some people to the notion that, particularly in the wake of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords they should abstain from gun and violence laden metaphors in their political rhetoric.
Now, before anyone gets the vapors at the suggestion that violent rhetoric is connected to this incident of violence, I will stipulate that I know nothing of the motives of the shooter, and I will further stipulate that her political opponents called only for metaphorical violence and not real violence. When Sarah Palin used crosshair imagery and “targeted” Congresswoman Gifford, she did not have a particular desire for actual bullets to be used. And when teapartiers talk about “Second Amendment solutions,” they are just being blowhards. And when they talked about political opponents being traitors, dictators and agents of tyranny, they were just talking out of their asses.
My personal suspicion is that this shooting does not happen in an environment where political debates are fact based, policy oriented, and lacking in violent rhetoric. But, again, I can’t prove this. Demonizing your opponent as an intolerable Other is more emotionally potent than boring old debates about the relatively modest distinctions between mainstream politicians. But, I also think it’s dangerous. Creating a narrative in which the very soul of a country beset by evil is at stake is probably useful in motivating your supporters; but it also tends to give license to other, potentially darker, political fantasies.
Giving up these narratives is emotionally difficult. When you suggest that people give up spinning those fantastic narratives and abstain from violent metaphors in political rhetoric, I’ve seen a very strong reaction in some quarters, as if you’re asking them to castrate themselves. As if such rhetoric is so vital to self esteem (or, I suppose political viability) that it’s worth the attendant risks. There is vehement denial that there is even the potential for attendant risks. It’s absolutely fair that, for example, Palin and her supporters should react strongly to the suggestion that her rhetorical crosshairs had anything whatsoever to do with the subsequent literal crosshairs. There isn’t any proof. But, there’s something more. You didn’t see the meticulous concern for factual accuracy when allegations about Obama’s “death panels” were the talk of the day.
There is visceral, emotional attachment to violent rhetoric and these political narratives invoking battles between Good and Evil that reminds me of whatever it was that so offended me as a young man by the suggestion that a mature man should be more concerned about living humbly than dying nobly. It’s probably time for us and our political discourse to grow up. However, I doubt there are many votes in that, and, again, it’s emotionally difficult; so pigs will undoubtedly start flying before that happens.
This incident, as well as (more locally), the overturned conviction of grandmother-stabbing Gary Galloway based on insanity concerns (pdf) and, I’m sure, plenty of other incidents; should really be leading to a discussion of how we handle mental illness in our society. But, that won’t happen either. Dealing with mental illness is complicated, expensive, and, again, interferes with a cherished narrative. In this case, the narrative is that we all rise and fall pretty much solely through exercise of our individual will. Recognition of mental illness seriously muddies the waters of our perception of free will and, consequently, issues pertaining to personal control, blame, and even our relationship to good and evil.
I had a legal writing teacher who was warning us about how tough it was to be vigilant when proofreading things we had written. “The brain is a wonderful thing, it just wants you to be happy.” In doing so, the brain creates blind spots to issues that might make you unhappy. In legal writing, that can make you glaze over weaknesses in your arguments. I think the same applies when cherished myths have an uncomfortable relationship to reality.
I completely agree with your argument about recognizing mental illness. What some of these pundits don’t understand (right and left) is that the mentally ill cannot understand that some (all) political news broadcasts are aimed at garnering an audience, not telling the truth. Those who are delusional respond to conspiracy theories and feel called to carry out some noble conquests to right the world. This is a horribly sad and tragic situation. Maybe Medicaid will get a few more dollars to treat the mentally ill; therefore properly treating clients and relieving some stress for those who choose to work with them.
“Emotional attachment to cherished narratives” is what political ideology is. Some have tried to include pragmatism as just another ideology and in today’s political dialogue thats probably apt.But then pragmatism can be destroyed as a threat. Protect the narrative by attacking personally anyone or group who is a threat. It’s ‘the people’ as advocats who are the problem to be attacked;not the narrative or ideology which is bedrock.
These are the insights that came from the above treatise on narratives .After this tragedy in Arizona,it’s still all about blaming someone’s narrative and protecting our own narrative .We know the killer was mentally deranged,but was he a deranged liberal or a deranged tea-partier, is the developing public political narrative . Who wins this narrative fight?
Postings like this is why I really enjoy reading this blog.Thinking results.Not necessarly answers are found,but thinking climbs a plateau.
It seems to me that the threats that Congressman have gotten have all revolved around the health care bill. To what extent are Democrats responsible for the lack of civility when they pass these massive, society changing laws against the will of the people?
While violence is unacceptable and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I think anger and rage against the ruling class is perfectly acceptable in the current environment. The establishment is ruling in extra-constitutional ways, and there is no check against their power grab. In that situation, civility just enables them to grab more and more power.
I don’t think the average person has troubled themselves to look into the specifics of what is actually in the health care bill to know whether it’s an unprecedented power grab or a warmed over grab bag of formerly Republican proposals to fix the health care system.
What a lot of them “know” comes from demagogues throwing around terms like “death panel,” “fascist,” and “communist” and generally doing what they can to stampede a jittery populace for their own gain.
I think that you need to consider that the average Fox News or Hannity listener knows more about the health bill than you do. I would not dismiss their objections so easily if I were you.
You also need to consider that, constitutionally, what is okay for Massachusetts to enact is not okay for the Feds to enact. So the claims that this bill are somehow “Romney-esque” can be dismissed out of hand.
Also, now that it is known that the shooter was just an a-political nut, does that change your rush-to-judgement post?
Rage has no place in the political arena, Buzz.
Agree or don’t. Be angry or happy, but anything more is crossing a line in a republican country.
Rage equals violence. That should be completely beyond the pale in a civilized society.
No. As an initial aside, I’m not sure your “it is known” formulation is, in fact, known. But, that’s beside the point. Regardless of whether this particular nutjob was inspired by violent rhetoric. Such rhetoric serves no legitimate political purpose and may well contribute to tragedy.
What I don’t get is the emotional attachment by some to being “tough” talking blowhards. If you’re going to use the guns on your political enemies, shut up already and do it. If you’re not going to use the guns on your political enemies, just shut up already. Quit talking about “liberal hunting licenses” and “we came unarmed this time” and “second amendment solutions” and all the rest of it. Those are nothing more than efforts to intimidate.
The point of talking about this now is that a few people might be paying attention. Criticizing this kind of rhetoric at other times usually result in the people using it doubling down on the “tough” imagery by trying to characterize their opponents as wimps for even mentioning it.
Buzzcut: What exactly does “against the will of the people” mean? This statement, which I hear all the time from both sides of the political sectrum, is perhaps the most inane phrase used today when discussing anything in politics. I was just wondering what it meant because the phrase is useless.
‘Against the will of the people’ sound like a Glenn Beck quote from one of his seminars on the what the Constiution ‘really’ is intended to mean.
The Constitution has been redefined by the conservaties.I think that’s why the rhetoric seems like a closed debate .You have to have taken the course.
I’ve watched Glenn Beck through many times when I visited my family.That’s what they watch faithfully.It’s a whole new world and I wonder who started all this new redacting and why? A conservative think tank?
Watch Glenn Beck through.
He’s very good at what he does and is very persuasive,especially if you’re searching for a validation of what you already believe.and you think that that labeling something ‘socialsim’ is an explanation.
I first became aware that someone was rewriting terminogly a few year back when what I learned in school had been changed fro those who were posting on the political debate blogs..Now fascism,communism socialism..everything extreme or bad, is to the LEFT side on the political spectrum and nothing extreme is left for conservatives to morph into.Hitler was both a socialist and a fascist.. and so was Stalin..It’s just impossible to discuss anything.
Loius and Lou: fine. I retract “will of the people” and substitute “all polls say that it is extremely unpopular”.
The health bill is opposed by something like 60% of voters, according to polls.
Doug: fine. We don’t know the shooters true motives. But based on his Myspace page, he ain’t a Tea Partier. So why the rush to judgment.
If I could ask you to do something, give this shooting as much consideration as you did the Ft. Hood shootings. Did you rush to condemn muslim extremism at the Ft. Hood shootings? I don’t think that you did. This is a similar situation in that regard.
Rage does not equal violence. I get road rage all the time. I have yet to shoot at a fellow driver, and I carry.
I find it ironic that liberals are telling people that their feelings (which is what rage is) are invalid.
And I find it ironic that conservatives are concerning themselves over something as trifling as people’s “feelings.”
And when I say “conservatives,” I guess I really mean “Buzzcut.” Because I don’t know that it’s at all fair to generalize about that.
Rage does equal violence. Look it up. Or, try using words that mean what you mean to say. Or, if you really do mean rage, then perhaps it’s time to emigrate?
So, you’re saying that while you haven’t shot (at) any other drivers, any other violent behavior is still on the table? Like tailgating, cutting off lanes, swerving, waving a tire iron, and the like? Interesting.
Really, Doug? Buzzcut is all about feelings. Usually negative ones. That’s my schtick. And I haven’t been involved in any violence in this lifetime. Talk is generally just that, talk. Blowing off steam, whatever.
So Doug, can you point me to the blog post where you condemned all those liberal knuckleheads that fantasized about assassinating Dubya in books and movies?
Disagree. Rage CAN mean violence. It does not have to do so. I can walk up to you in a rage, even a violent rage, and not actually perform violence.
Bottom line: political campaigns frequently allude to war and violence (“I will fight”, “front lines” “battle plan” “attack”, and even “defend” (not to mention the terms used by Palin like “cross-hairs” “line of sight”, etc.
It is easy to get swept up and view others that have differing world views as “the enemy.” This behavior is not a part of politics I enjoy (which is one of the reasons I am a fan of Mitch, who has much more “civil” discourse). However, I would wager that it does increase the amount of contributions. Recent events should serve as as a reminder that this type of language, while probably effective, is in fact inappropriate, and really should be avoided.
The real problem is social and/or conceptual. Reasonable people understand that using words that might be more extreme than they would ever contemplate acting upon, to make a point, may not be understood in the correct context by persons who lack certain social and/or conceptual skills.
When anyone spends their time talking about “rage against the machine” or “helter skelter”, there are often going to be people who cannot understand in the correct context. Sometimes, those people act upon their mistaken conclusions in a violent fashion.
Since this tends to be confined to fairly rare, isolated instances, there is really very little our society can do to prevent it.
Speaking of which, here is a clip which contains Limbaugh & Beck mocking Rep. Pelosi for criticizing violent rhetoric.
And, no, Buzz; I don’t recall spending time criticizing the random people on the Internet for whatever they may have said about doing violence to Bush. But, are they really equivalent in stature to the likes of Palin, Angle, and Beck? If so, they should be marginalized as well.
some real whoppers being thrown about here.
mitch daniels — who once compared statehouse democrats to car bombers — has “civil discourse”?
jared loughner — who feared government mind control — was “a-political”?
fox news viewers know “more about the health bill than you do” — when polls have shown them to be the most misinformed on that issue (and others)?
“All the polls say it is extremely unpopular” is just as bad as saying “against the will of the people”. “All” means…all. “Polls” means…well, what polls? I’ve seen a few polls regarding “Obamacare” with about a fifty/fifty split in opinion, so that negates “all”.
And I’m sorry, but even with your figure of 60% disapproving Obamacare, that could hardly be called “extremely unpopular”. We have had a few presidents elected with about 60% of the country not voting for them, but I doubt many people could hardly say they were extremely unpopular as a blanket statement about the country when they were elected.
And even the polls that reflect disapproval of the healthcare reform bill as an ill-defined whole have a tendency to evaporate when people are asked about its specific provisions.
And, of course, that doesn’t matter. If the Will of the People was opposed to maintaining the health care status quo through procedural obstructions, that would hardly justify an act of violence against the minority Senate Republicans.
Aw screw it. I’m going home and listening to my Judas Priest records backwards. Can’t see any harm to come from that.
fox news viewers know “more about the health bill than you do” — when polls have shown them to be the most misinformed on that issue (and others)?
Yet when we’re #17 in math scores, but #1 in confidence about our math scores, it’s proof of failure.
Agreed. I don’t like the jumbled mess that was passed as health care, but enough people didn’t mind it enough to re-elect some of the people that passed it. If they had, it would be repealed.
I do think it is a good think to have an armed public in case government ceases to listen to the people (as in ignoring or REALLY fixing elections). However, nothing that has happened in the last few hundred years has qualified as needing a violent revolution.
Doug, I’m not justifying the violence. But if you’re going to ask if Tea Party rhetoric caused this shooting (when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that that is true), I’m going to ask what you think that YOUR side may have done to provoke this young man. Because there is just as much evidence to convict you as us.
It is also kind of ironic that you say that you want to raise the level of discourse while at the same time accusing the other side of blood libel. Nice. Really nice.
“Blood libel?” That’s a pretty good marker that your talking points are originating from somewhere other than yourself.
OK. What is a better definition?
You’re basically blaming Tea Partiers for a murder, but then saying that we need to raise the level of discourse. You don’t see any problem with that?
Well, here is what I said:
If you’d care to identify which part of that is off base, I’d be happy to address it. What I’d suggest is removing crap alluding to the jack boots coming in campaign speeches and political programming along with allusions to resisting these non-existent existential threats with armed violence – whether that armed violence is intended metaphorically or not. And, if Democrats are threatening their opponents with physical violence (or surveys), even as a “joke,” they should knock it off as well.
What I don’t recommend is the government taking this incident as an invitation to restrict speech. The lines of appropriate behavior just aren’t going to be anywhere near bright enough to make the government a useful tool in striking the appropriate balances. About the best we can do is call folks out and maybe socially marginalize them when they cross the line. And pay attention to what people on your own “side” are saying. I’m not buying into the “both sides are doing it equally” argument. That’s too easy and not, in my opinion, true. But, it is true that someone on your own “side” is more likely to listen to you than someone from the opposition.
On the other hand, it’s not going to work if one side is minding its p’s and q’s while the other is continuing to win votes as “being tough” through belligerent posturing.
Whatever. Like Democrats are really “minding it’s p’s and q’s”.
Why do you constantly look for the most extreme voices on the other side and pretend that they speak for all? It’s kind of like your obsession with slandering Southerners because of a few bitter enders.
Oh, no. We’ve reached the “Whatever” stage of this discussion.
I hate it when I do that. Thank goodness it wasn’t me this time.
;)
Everything Doug knows about conservatives he learned on a Bircher website.
Of course, being Indiana, probably half his neighbors are Birchers. ;)
Doug: if you like the song “Imagine”, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4YfBKs39Y
So much for “minding their p’s and q’s,” eh?
(As a side note, it is amazing how the death of Judge Roll seems to be ignored in this whole thing).