Some Thoughts on the Tea Party and Responsibility

This is not a sane man.

As I’ve said before, it’s quite clear that the responsibility for the shootings in Tucson this weekend lays at the feet of the shooter, though if he is indeed paranoid schizophrenic, I’d argue even he doesn’t bear any real responsibility and should just spend the rest of his life in a mental institution. But there are those who are ready to blame the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Liberals/Fox News/Obama/[insert favorite political cause here]. Now I’m not prepared to blame any of them, even the Tea Party people, but I do think they bear some responsibility for contributing to the problem.

How? By nurturing a climate of hate, fear and distrust. By fanning the flames of violence. By using violent images in their campaigns. By, as one of my uncles put it, fertilizing the field and then acting shocked – SHOCKED! – that their garden grew some weeds. Doing things like claiming the government isn’t legitimate, that the President isn’t legitimate, that health care reform will lead to “death panels”, putting cross-hairs on political opponents and opposing even the most basic, reasonable forms of gun control, the right wing in general and the Tea Party in particular does bear some responsibility for making it much, much easier for something like this to happen.

Here’s how put it:

First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country. Then you make easy for them to get guns. But if you really want trouble, you should also make it hard for them to get treatment for mental illness. I don’t know if Loughner had health insurance, but he falls into a pool of people who often go uninsured—not young enough to be covered by parents (until the health-care bill’s coverage of twentysomethings kicked in a few months ago), not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. If such a person happens to have a history of mental illness, he will be effectively uninsurable. To get treatment, he actually has to commit a crime. If Republicans succeed in repealing the Obama health care bill, that’s how it will remain.

I think that there’s some legitimacy to this position. I think that the right wing in general, and again, the Tea Party in particular, really, really need to stop spewing the kind of violent language they spew in order to make their points. If they can’t get elected without resorting to violent arguments, then perhaps their positions aren’t anything that’s worth supporting at all.


2 Responses to “Some Thoughts on the Tea Party and Responsibility”

  1. Robin Says:

    Rhetorical recklessness seems to be the leftist label of using war or hunting analogies; soil survey symbols, demonstrating a right to bear arms, fighting for your rights (notice “fighting” used innocuously).

    These terms have been used in business and politics since war began. Both parties have used them. I don’t know anybody that took the terms/analogies/symbols to mean get out your guns and kill people.

    There isn’t a shred of evidence that it does.

    Otherwise most music, movies and videos would be on a “hit list” to be banned. Anybody believe in book burning? Not likely, because that’s absurd. And so is the left’s attempt to call the political “Right” mass murderers (speaking of lunacy). This is worse than hyperbole; this is more inciting than the political rhetoric. Accusing someone of having blood on their hands and the results of which will lead to losing rights (1st and 2nd amendment) is nothing short of a lynching mentality.

    A revolution doesn’t automatically mean violence. Many conservatives, Tea Partiers and talk show hosts from the right have denounced violence time and again. Tea Partiers have proven their non-violence presence through countless massive demonstrations over a two year span – the Tea Party is middle America, regular (previously non-political) folk…somebody needs some perspective!

    • Chris Says:

      I don’t think I know of anyone on the left (at least not within any legitimate media or political establishments), who have been calling the right wing “mass murderers”. If they have been that is indeed lunacy.

      I still contend that the violent, militaristic imagery from the right may have contributed to Loughner’s unstable paranoia. Ultimately it doesn’t matter if it did or didn’t, since it’s still something that should. Seriously, if the right can’t make their points without dragging out this kind of imagery, maybe their points aren’t very good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: