Heath Haussamen
Standing next to a sheriff’s deputy at a town-hall meeting hosted by then-U.S. Rep. Harry Teague in the summer of 2009, I had an uncomfortable thought.
It would have been easy for one or two armed people to walk into the commission chambers at the Doña Ana County Government Center and shoot both deputies and Teague before anyone else knew what was happening.
I was half expecting such an incident somewhere across the nation at the time. Congress was debating the controversial health care law, tensions were high, and there had been death threats against members of Congress.
For nearly a year and a half, I was relieved that such an event didn’t happen. But I thought about the possibility often. And on Saturday, I was devastated to learn that my fears had come true.
We still don’t know exactly what motivated Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head, kill six others including U.S. District Judge John Roll, and injure a dozen more. There are signs he was mentally unstable. He reportedly leaned to the left politically. There’s also evidence that some of his writings are based on ideas from the right.
However, there’s one thing I’m comfortable saying in laying some blame for this tragedy. We the people, and our politicians, political groups and media, have ramped up the violent rhetoric to a level that only serves to spread hate and division, and thus encourages such tragedies. We all share some of the blame for this shooting because we have tolerated – and some of us have even used – violent rhetoric in our political discourse.
A climate in which violent acts are bound to happen
It’s not clear that Loughner was – or was not – directly influenced by violent rhetoric such as Sarah Palin’s telling followers, “Don’t retreat, reload,” and putting up a map on her Web site showing gun sites over the districts of Giffords and others she wanted to defeat. What is clear is that such rhetoric creates a climate in which violent acts are bound to happen.
As long as we tolerate violent rhetoric and the climate it creates, it may be only a matter of time before another member of Congress is gunned down.
I single out Palin because hers is among the most blatant of recent examples of violent rhetoric from a public official. Those who have more access to the media, like Palin, have a louder voice, and thus a greater duty to watch what they say.
And while the rhetoric has been significantly worse from the right in recent years, examples are plentiful from the left and right – from politicians including President Barack Obama and Rep. Michele Bachmann, from media outlets including FOX News and Daily Kos, and from citizens, including those who held up signs advocating for the killing of George W. Bush while he was president.
The use of violent rhetoric is and certainly should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean we should be using such language. But we do – in our political discourse, in our churches, and in the media. We use violent rhetoric to elicit emotional responses and get people involved.
By “we,” I include myself. If I’ve used violent rhetoric in my 13 years as a journalist – and I’m pretty sure that I occasionally have – I apologize for it. It’s not any more appropriate coming from me than it is from Glen Beck.
Which path will we take?
Following this shooting, America is at a crossroads. In these uber-partisan times, we need to decide which path we’re going to take.
We can continue to choose to view each other with distrust and hate. We can continue to believe those who disagree with us are enemies, and use language that reflects that belief and divides us even further. We can allow ourselves to be torn apart by our division.
Or we can tone it down. We can stop trying to convince people that the other side is the enemy. We can stop implicitly or explicitly condoning violence against each other. We can instead choose to reach out and try to understand the viewpoints of those who are different from us.
Together, if we were to choose mutual respect and understanding, we could build a struggling America into a stronger nation.
That isn’t an easy path. I’m an independent and a moderate not because it’s my natural tendency to gravitate to the middle, but because I work every day to try to understand and respect others’ viewpoints, and because I carry a deep belief in the constitutional principle that it takes the collective deliberation of all of us to find the path forward.
Sometimes it’s difficult to show respect for someone with whom I disagree. I confess that I consider Palin a disgusting caricature of right-wing extremism who contributes to the division and violence that plagues our society. I want her to admit that her violent rhetoric has contributed to a dangerous climate that includes a very real threat against members of Congress and others.
Likewise, I confess that I was constantly infuriated by Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” segment until he suspended it in November. I watched that segment take quotes out of context and twist words in order to make people on the right look stupid and evil. Through doing that, Olbermann promoted division and hatred.
Olbermann’s defense of the segment even as he suspended it was equally maddening.
It’s my hope that by admitting publicly my biases against Palin and Olbermann, I am starting a dialogue and opening myself up to the possibility of gaining a better understanding of who they are and why they do what they do.
Because toning down the violent rhetoric won’t be enough to fix our problems. We have to seek to understand and find a way to respect each other, rather than viewing each other with distrust and hate.
Call me an idealist, but I believe Americans can be mature enough to handle the freedom and the responsibility given to us by our Constitution, and especially our First Amendment. I hope I’m right.