The Mentally Ill And Terrorists

Like most twisted logic, there is always a large dose of truth in emotional diatribes. So it is with Keith Olberman’s recent rant about the “politics” behind last week's very tragic Tucson shooting.

As someone who has little political sympathy with Sarah Palin, I find it odd to come to her defense, but I find it disturbing that a political commentator would use this tragedy to rail against his own political enemies. News flash: Sarah Palin may or may not be an idiot, but she did not commit this crime. This event was committed by a deranged young man, not a “domestic terrorist” (unless of course, you believe there is an organized military movement to liberate American grammar).

I am sick of both sides using the word “terrorist” to describe anything that has to do with their opponents, and using this tragedy to try and tie this to Sarah Palin or any other politician for that matter, is simply sad. (Never mind that one of the deranged young man’s favorite reads was the Communist Manifesto. I highly doubt you will find that on Palin’s favorite reading list -- assuming she reads, of course.) Saying Jared Lee Loughner is a voice for anybody -- other than maybe Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley Jr., or Mark David Chapman -- is ludicrous.

And when Olberman gets it right, that there is too much violence in American society today, he completely ignores our government’s fascination with this activity. Violence is tragic no matter where it is committed and regardless of who is committing it. While scanning Facebook, one poster got it right when he said he “wishes everyone in America would pay as much attention to the women and children our foreign policy is murdering every day as they are over this horrible Arizona massacre. It’s easy to empathize with birds of a feather, I realize. But that doesn’t make it less hypocritical. Everyone person on this earth has a right to live free and peacefully.” (But then again, by pointing this out, maybe I am using this tragedy for my own political ends.)

In the end, giving this tragic event more meaning than it deserves is not only uncalled for, it is dangerous. As a great Op/Ed piece from the WSJ put it:

Ponder the implication of this. A deranged soul shoots a public figure and we are supposed to change our political discourse and rule certain people and opinions out of bounds based on whatever incoherent ramblings Mr. Loughner published on his website?

Every two years we hold elections so that sane Americans can make a judgment on the policies of President Obama, John Boehner, tea party candidates and so on. ...[Yet,] we are supposed to put that aside and assess what a murderer with a mental illness has to tell us about the state of American politics, government and our national dialogue.

This line of argument is itself an attack on democratic discourse, and it is amazing that it even needs to be rebutted. Taking such an argument seriously will only encourage more crazy people to believe they can trigger a national soul-searching if they shoot at a political target. We should denounce the murders and the murderer, rather than doing him the honor of suggesting that his violence flows in any explainable fashion from democratic debate.

[...] Mr. Obama can lift the level of public discourse by explaining the reality of Mr. Loughner’s illness and calling out those on the right and left who want to blame the other side for murder. That would be a genuinely Presidential act of leadership, and it would have the added advantage of being honest about the murders in Tucson.

My sympathy goes out to the victims of this senseless tragedy.