The problem is not political rhetoric. Political rhetoric didn’t cause those murders.
We do hear over and over that our political rhetoric is too intense and too inflammatory and “toxic.” That’s true. Without minimizing the inhumanity of some of this rhetoric, when has political rhetoric not been exaggerated? When I was a kid, because I was listening to exaggerated rhetoric, I thought the world was going to fall apart if a Catholic — his name was John F. Kennedy — became President of this (apparently only Protestant Christian) nation. It didn’t.
I’ve read a bit about this political rhetoric issue, and often the observations begin to look into the Old Testament prophets with their highly passionate, and hardly measured, rhetoric. I read that Thomas Jefferson was certain orthodox faith would be gone with a few years and even offered a few harsh judgments himself. Thomas Paine and (eventual) President Adams had more than their share of verbal fisticuffs. From Michael Moore to Glen Beck — extremism in political rhetoric is part of our country’s approach. In fact, the whole world is filled with political rhetoric like this.
But the columnists and opinionators keep saying the same thing: things are getting out of hand, the rhetoric is too ramped up, and this will be our country’s undoing.What we need is more even-handed statements. I agree but that’s now what caused this tragedy nor is it the solution.
So I decided to read and compare the NYTimes with the National Review. The NYTimes article by a Mr. Matt Bai opinionated that our problem was the rhetoric — and I was set then for a good example of measured rhetoric and judgment, but what he did was point relentlessly at the Right. More of the same. So I read National Review and, lo and behold, Jonah Goldberg opinionated about the opportunism (more of the same) and then, rather surprisingly, said he had nothing to say and offered his thoughts and prayers until we know more. Which is better than what Andrew Sullivan did, which was to publish — about as soon as he could have — the map of Sarah Palin’s targets. I thought it was shameful what Sullivan did, but what he didn’t do was observe that one of Anderson Cooper’s columns spoke about Rahm Emanuel in the political cross hairs. Which illustrates the whole problem:
The problem, my friends, is not the rhetoric of the columnists, or the politicians, or the bloggers. Well, yes, it is. There is too much nonsense and inflammatory rhetoric. I am committed to working even harder at civil discourse. But heated political rhetoric is not new — it’s the nature of the game and one can see it even in Thomas Paine’s classic Common Sense? Political rhetoric is not what caused the tragedy.
The problem is that human beings are cracked. What happened in broad daylight, in broad premeditated daylight, in Tucson was sickening to the stomach and destructive of the human spirit. But that didn’t happen because he was a right winger or left winger — and a case has been made for both. And it didn’t happen because the Left or the Right had gotten inside that young man’s head and spoiled it.
This tragedy happened because Jared Lee Loughner was disturbed and he was free in our society and he had a gun and he used it. All murderers are disturbed. Jared Loughner, on his own, bought a gun — we could make tighter gun laws (and I’m for that). Jared Loughner exhibited strange and disturbing behaviors in a college — we could make more laws about how to deal with troubled students. (I’ve had a few myself but a school’s intuition in these matters is rarely clear.) Jared Loughner probably listened to inflammatory political rhetoric — we could make some laws that would curtail free speech. Jared Loughner was told he need to see a therapist — we could make some laws that make people see therapists. … we could, we could, we could.
But our approach is to find the source so we can blame it and solve it instead of admitting the reality: our world, my friends, is not perfect; it is broken; we live among cracked people who are free to roam in ways that can harm others; we can’t make enough laws to prevent disturbed people from doing despicable things. We can’t, we can’t, we can’t. We can’t protect the world from disturbed people unless we change the world dramatically.
Poor old Abel didn’t wake up — I’m referring here to Genesis 4 — that day and think “Cain just might get mad enough to kill me so I’ll make some laws and get Adam Dad and Eve Mom to enforce the rules.” Nope, Abel did what he was supposed to and Cain killed him for it.
There are not enough laws on the books to transform humans from cracked to transformed.
To be sure, we can work for laws that will make it harder to murder and will make it impossible for murders to repeat their actions. We could work for laws that are more alert to disturbed people. And we should work for justice — with all we’ve got. We need to protect our public servants.
But the problem, Mr and Mrs Pundit, is not the Right or the Left. The problem is You and Me. Let’s quit the blame and look inside.
The problem is right where Solzhenitsyn said it was: the line between good and evil runs through the heart of each of us. In each of us lies the capacity to become Cain.
I shall not today refuse to do things because someone might stand up in some chaotic moment and out of some wildness decide to mow me down. I shall today do what I always do.
Yes because of Cain and Tucson, many of us will probably look over the shoulder a few times.
Well said, Scot. Well said…
Comment by Robert Martin — January 10, 2011 @ 11:11 am
Exactly right- The problem here is in the human heart. The problem in the Garden would not be solved by outlawing fruit or putting a warning lable on fruit trees. There are things we could do to eliminate events such as this but not eliminate them. Timothy McVey prooved that motor oil and garden fertilizer can blow up an entire office building. Now is the time for Christians to be witnesses to the Kingdom by becoming the Kingdom and not the Empire. It will requre repentance on all of our parts and not just finding fault in the other. Loving people like this shooter may well involve confining them but not dehumanizing them. Would not the world be better off by its having cared enough to intervene and stop this before it happened?
Comment by Ed Holm — January 10, 2011 @ 11:14 am
Thank you for this, Scot. This important reminder of the reality in which we all must live, along with Michael Kruse’s insightful post on Violence, has been a much needed voice of balance in the frey.
God have mercy, indeed. Oh wait, we already have Jesus! We just have to determine to live the Jesus Creed in thought, word and deed.
Love the Northumbria morning office words: “be in the heart of each to whom I speak; in the mouth of each who speaks unto me.”
Comment by Peggy — January 10, 2011 @ 11:17 am
You’re right about cracked individuals. The world is in a fallen state and will only get worse before it gets better. No surprise there; scripture foretells this. Our role as Christians is to ask ourselves, what are we going to do about it? We have a message of hope; will we take that message to the lost, dying and cracked all around us or will we give in to the quick fix which is is neither quick nor a fix.
Comment by Pat Pope — January 10, 2011 @ 11:18 am
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think pointing to the violent rhetoric as a symptom of a larger societal sickness is absolutely important. Of course Palin isn’t to blame for what happened, but when violent metaphors are the substance of one’s rhetoric, shouldn’t we at least raise the question as to their appropriateness? I’m with you that politics has always been filled with rhetoric, but when it begins to become violent rhetoric we are on the verge of something more serious, I think. Gareth Higgins has a great article toward this end here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gareth-higgins/preventing-political-viol_b_806399.html
Comment by Erik Leafblad — January 10, 2011 @ 11:23 am
This is all true, but …
In any other part of our society, we would consider what passes for political rhetoric as bullying and we would not put up with it. It has created a poisonous, toxic environment in which a mentally deranged individual could not tell the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Yes, I agree with Solzhenitsyn that the line between good and evil runs through my heart (and yours). I also agree that creating more laws is unlikely to change things.
However, I also believe that it is my duty as a citizen to require more responsible and gracious rhetoric from my leaders and a more healthy and productive environment for conversation to take place around national issues.
Comment by sonja — January 10, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Thank you, Scot, for expressing that so clearly and beautifully.
Comment by Rob Grayson — January 10, 2011 @ 11:40 am
I don’t want to sound too facetious, but for a person who teaches about a book full of words and makes their living writing words, are you now saying words don’t matter?
Does any one think that the Germans weren’t swayed due to rhetoric about the Jews? Or that our whole history has not been shaped by the words we use about blacks, Indians, Chinese, current immigrants from the south?
Of course, words matter and our political rhetoric is part of the equation that brought about this tragic event in Tuscon. So our are gun laws, so is the lack of access to mental health, so is our whole culture of extreme individualism. I guess we can say “thankfully” its mostly just limited to bullying at schools and work, but words do matter and those who practice hate speech (Beck, etc.) need to examine themselves.
Comment by Jim H. — January 10, 2011 @ 11:41 am
I agree with your entire post Scot and think it hits the perfect balance.
For those of you that still want to harp on the “political climate” I am posting a link below that provides some background to the “climate” we have had in the past 10 years. If you want this climate to change, the worst thing you can probably do is look for reasons that your political opponents are accomplices to murder. Unfortunately, Bush (and Palin) derangement syndrome on the left has only been met with Obama derangement syndrome on the right. This kind of tit-for-tat gets us nowhere.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
Comment by Robin — January 10, 2011 @ 11:53 am
About a year ago I was in a meeting in church (presumably about 10 of us leaders), and the question came up of a sick person coming in. More than half of the 10 whipped out their pistol and said they would shoot. Scared the ____out of me…..
Comment by DRT — January 10, 2011 @ 11:54 am
I want to clarify why I posted that link. The thought that enters my head is “when did it become acceptable for conservatives to think/feel/talk in such derogatory means about the President and sitting members of government? When did this become OK? Why do they feel free to create an environment of violent political rhetoric?”
I think the answer to that could go all the way back to the anti-war protests of the 60′s, but we don’t even have to look back that far. We can look back at the episodes of the previous decade, things that were said and written and accepted by the public at large as acceptable political speech, and it becomes clear where they got the idea that it was acceptable.
And when the next conservative administration comes in, and the left, and code pink turn up the volume a couple more notches, they’ll be able to say, accurately, “this isn’t much different than what the TEA Party and Sarah Palin did” and we will only perpetuate the escalation of political rhetoric.
Comment by Robin — January 10, 2011 @ 11:59 am
Words form culture, and culture shapes behavior.
To argue that we are somehow independent of what we hear around us 24×7 is really not great news for the future of sermon
Take a look at some of the old Nazi rallies and tell me that political rhetoric doesn’t matter, that’s it’s just another cracked human being. If I were to abuse my daughter verbally every day, what will be the odds of her success later in life? For me to excuse what I did by saying it’s just original sin only makes it worse.
Comment by Fish — January 10, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Wonderful words, Scot. Thanks.
I’d push back gently in this one place, though:
Isn’t the rhetoric alarming precisely BECAUSE the man is deranged? In other words, you and I could read words like “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly” — and we wouldn’t be tempted to shoot anyone. We wouldn’t see crosshairs and think, “Hmmm, they must really want me to shoot someone.” We’d get the image. We would know when the president said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, you bring a gun” — that he wasn’t asking anyone to bring a gun.
But the demonizing/hitlerizing in our current rhetoric is perhaps most disturbing BECAUSE there are so many deranged individuals. Some might not know that you don’t literally mean “lock and load.”
Knowing that someone like Loughner can so easily obtain a lethal weapon, it seems important to reign back the images of crosshairs, taking aim, reloading, etc.
That is NOT to blame any of the people who have used such metaphors (right and left) for this tragedy. But it is a sobering wake-up call to ratchet it down a bit.
Thanks.
Comment by Mike Cope — January 10, 2011 @ 12:07 pm
The rhetoric has always been there (along with the rhetoric of violence). What has changed is the degree of exposure represented by 24-7 radio talk and TV “news” and access to all kinds of inflammatory “ammo” (pun intended)via the web. Too much negative fuel and the unbalanced explode. Add undiscrimatating gun control and sadly, that’s a recipe for a lot more of the same to come.
Lessons – Some sane level of “verbal” acccountability and greater responsibility for firearm access.
Comment by Dean — January 10, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
We don’t like to talk about the darkness that is in the human heart. The shooter had his own “demons” and his mind had become “hell” on earth. He needed help, it is just too bad/sad that it has to come to this for him to get that help.
Comment by John H — January 10, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
Does anyone on here do acid? Or have they done it in the past? I’m only asking because all of Loughner’s talk about creating his own language and his focus on dreams/visions reminds me of the stories I have heard about acid trips. When I read that he smoked pot every day it made me wonder if some of his pot had not been laced with other drugs, or if he had just graduated from pot to big boy drugs. Anyone have any experience? My pre-conversion experience stops with mary jane and painkillers.
Comment by Robin — January 10, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Hey, Scot? You didn’t just happen to write a commentary on James, did you?
We all need the reminding that the cycles within us, expressed by & thru us, run from 1:14-15 outward into patterns expressed in 3:5-16. Thank you!
Comment by Ann F-R — January 10, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Thanks for your reasonable thoughts, Scott. We seek so hard to satiate our appetites that God’s peace moves further and further away from us. Peace.
Comment by Steve — January 10, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
Thanks Scot, I agree with you completely. Many don’t know the history of political debate in this country. In the past it has been even worse than what we hear today. It has been part of our process. Another reason to believe that the answer doesn’t sit with politics.
Comment by Tom — January 10, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
I think the worst part of the situation is that there is no established motive, just circumstantial piecing together of assumptions. There is no direct evidence he shot them for political reasons and it demonstrates just how religiosly we take politcs in this country. News, punditry, and the constant politicization of human life create as many assumptions as they do explain things that happen. Until we know for sure I will withhold judgement either way. The poltical religion of the US though is already telling the electorate how to think by assimilating this event when what is needed is prayer and reflection. I agree with Robert here, external laws won’t cure internal illness.
@Robin:
Thank you, so many people constantly deride government officials who call themselves conservative (never mind they are usually classic liberals historically speaking) but respect for the office and person is a must for order in society, even our governmental officials, on every level of society. President Obama should not be addressed as “Mr. Barry”, “Mr.Obama”, or anything informal. I am not his family or friend, he is my president, thus the formality is due. I don’t yell at some stranger, “hey lady!”, no I say “Excuse me ma’am”.
Comment by Chris — January 10, 2011 @ 1:04 pm
Brother, you have hit the nail on the head. Thank you for that very reasoned and truthful analysis. Not sure what sickened me most the actual slaughter or the immediate finger pointing all over the place. You pointed in the right direction however, our own crackedness. Only one solution to that problem, and that will never be mentioned on msnbc or Fox News.
Comment by David Reeves — January 10, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that political rhetoric was never harsh before.
What is relatively new is the constant access people have to hatred: on radio, television, internet. The deepest suspicions and hatreds are fed 24/7.
Mix that with the number of deranged people and the ease of obtaining a Glock 19 9mm semi-automatic handgun . . . and you have a problem.
Nevertheless, I want to affirm again this wonderful blog piece.
Comment by Mike Cope — January 10, 2011 @ 1:12 pm
I heard this guy was doing drugs all the time, and that he could be schzophrenic, and that he lived with his parents. His parents must of known about all his problems, so I wonder if his parents where trying to help him get proper treatment.
Comment by Linda — January 10, 2011 @ 1:27 pm
What a great post — at once timely and timeless.
Comment by Daniel S — January 10, 2011 @ 1:29 pm
Stipulated: humanity is cracked, and our differences are mostly in degree! But I agree also with those here who have said that words and culture DO matter, and it seems to me that Jared Loughner had a few concepts from the political culture sneak into the alternate reality in which he lives. While it also seems very possible that he was acting out a grudge that was purely about her failing to respond to him in a way that made sense to him (and what would that have been?), it strikes me that now is the right time for the public to refuse to laugh and go along with the violent rhetoric any more – why not?
@Robin, thanks for the link – all the hateful stuff on both sides should be repudiated. But most important, I would like to see those who have their own ‘pulpit’ on talk radio and tv be held accountable for their assertions that are provably false, in order to de-fang the constant intimations of the end of our nation, etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with calmly insisting that the truth be told, from every quarter.
Comment by Sue — January 10, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
Thank you David.
Comment by Chris — January 10, 2011 @ 1:51 pm
Someone told me that if I was angry at my brother or sister I was liable to judgment, and that if I insulted my brother or sister that I was liable to the courts, and that if I called my brother or sister an “idiot” that I was liable to be burned at a toxic waste dump. The Person who told me this seemed to imply that my words could be just as murderous and deadly as the nut job who actually pulled the trigger. And when I told this Man my political affiliation and described how evil the people in the other Party were, He didn’t seem to care. He won’t accept any of my excuses. What should I do?
Comment by Timothy — January 10, 2011 @ 2:25 pm
As far as political rhetoric goes there is a difference as Paul Krugman astutely points out: And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will. Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
It bothers me, all the false equivalencies — show me the Democratic leaders or media apologists fantasizing online about killing their political opponents like is common with right wing talkers. Or anything resembling this.
Comment by Naum — January 10, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
Media frames in the aftermath of Giffords shooting that promote false equivalencies…
No leftish equivalent…
@Robin, citing from Michelle Malkin, who has been apologist for internment, torture, etc.… Really?
Yes, there is that element of the left but unlike on the conservative side, it’s mostly confined to anonymous comments on blogs. Whereas conservative leadership and its anointed media spokespersons (i.e., Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, etc.…) engage in on a daily basis and are celebrated by party leadership, even to the extent of “second amendment remedies” proudly proclaimed by such candidates…
There is a difference as Krugman says, between “caustic remarks and mockery” and eliminationist rhetoric. Those that claim this false equivalency are making a grave error…
Comment by Naum — January 10, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
But that didn’t happen because he was a right winger or left winger — and a case has been made for both. And it didn’t happen because the Left or the Right had gotten inside that young man’s head and spoiled it.
You may still disagree (indeed, I suspect you will on the basis of this article), but as a clarification of my own position, it’s not so much that the Left or the Right “spoiled” the man’s head. It’s that they gave additional and unnecessary ammunition to the already-spoiled mind.
I don’t know if that kind of thing can be fixed, but I still think that it’s something we should all be aware of and take whatever measure of our own responsibility for.
Comment by Mark Baker-Wright — January 10, 2011 @ 3:38 pm
Agreed, we’re all sinners. Disagree that violent rhetoric had nothing to do with this atrocity. Or that we shouldn’t name it and shame it. Loughner is obviously a very disturbed person. A useful analogy I heard yesterday: violent rhetoric is like a contagious disease. The disease typically takes the very young, the very old and the infirm–in other words, it is most deadly to people on the margins–the susceptible more than the healthy. In the same way, violent rhetoric, now ubiquitous thanks to prominent politicians and pundits on various media 24/7, can harm the mentally deranged. And that may be what happened here. Even if it had nothing to do with this, Christians who practice enemy love can never condone violent rhetoric and ought to work against it. part of the kingdom.life it seems to me.
Comment by Albion — January 10, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
Naum #28-
” show me the Democratic leaders or media apologists”
I almost provided a link to some examples. However, I decided I don’t want to contribute to the tone.
Instead, rather than accusing the other side of being worse, let’s set a tone for positive and encouraging dialogue; and as Scot mentions, recognize the faults in ourselves, and our own “side”.
Comment by Rick — January 10, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
Matt Bai is not a liberal.
Comment by Mich — January 10, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
Mich @33, who said he was and why is this relevant? I don’t get your point.
Comment by Daniel — January 10, 2011 @ 4:33 pm
@Rick, #32
Yeah, both sides are the same.
Comment by Naum — January 10, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
An interesting read…both Scot’s article and the various comments. Seems as though Timothy #27 was the only one to get the spit in the can.
One side note: for those who continue to labor under the false impression that somehow stricter gun laws will help solve these kind of incidents – they won’t. It might make you feel better, but won’t make you any safer. As the adage goes, “guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people” with all sorts of things; cars, rocks, baseball bats, guns, fists, knives and more.
Comment by Norm — January 10, 2011 @ 5:00 pm
Your post is spot-on Scot. It is easy for us to slip into a false nostalgia for the days when political discourse was more tame, but anyone who has studied American political history knows that such a time never existed. The real issue is that power truly does corrupt, and when sinful people clash to obtain and maintain power, all sorts of sinful things happen. And in my opinion, far too many Christians have pitched their tent with political movements so completely that they have lost the ability to critique the ungodliness that exists in politics.
Comment by Shane Scott — January 10, 2011 @ 5:02 pm
Scott, well said! I agree completely. I appreciate both the reason, balance, and truth that you emphasize and display in this post.
Comment by Jim Martin — January 10, 2011 @ 5:15 pm
Naum #35-
I will not be baited into a discussion of which side is worse. That is not the point of Scot’s post. Regardless of which side has the scales tilting its way, both sides need to cool down the rhetoric.
Comment by Rick — January 10, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
Amen to what Jim Martin says! Thanks Scot!
Comment by Ted M. Gossard — January 10, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Perfect! This post is what the Gospel sounds when it interacts well with world events.
Comment by Jim Graser — January 10, 2011 @ 6:02 pm
the death rhetoric comes from both sides
Quote:
Rahm Emanuel: Knife Fighter, A Look Back
The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time – the many times – that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor’s race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.
It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton’s chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe’s, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies – Democrats, Republicans, members of the press – who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.
Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.
”Dead!” he screamed.
The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ”Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1…_n_141595.html
“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,” — Obama, October 6, 2010
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”— Obama in July 2008
“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!”— Barack Obama, September 2008
“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”— Obama to Latinos, October 2010
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010 “We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“ — Obama on the private sector, June 2010
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” – President Barack Obama”
“Argue with neighbors, Get in their face!,” – President Barack Obama”
“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” – President Barack Obama”
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry.” – President Barack Obama”
“Punish your enemies”- President Barack Obama”
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“ – President Barack Obama”
“I’m itching for a fight.” – President Barack Obama”
“Hand-to-hand combat” – President Barack Obama”
WHO SAID, “WE KNOW IF THE POWER OF PERSUASION DOES NOT WORK, WE WILL USE THE PERSUASION OF POWER”?
WHO WAS IT WHO SAID, “WE REVERE MOA. WE KNOW THAT CHANGE COMES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN”?
Comment by brosty — January 10, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
I published a post today calle Increasing Violence?. Two key points.
The murder rate was 5 per 100,000 individuals in 2009. That is the lowest it has been since 1964 and half of what it was at its high in 1980 (10.1)
Violent crime, as measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (measures actual incidents of crime versus only those reported to police) was 17.1 crimes per 1,000 people. That is the lowest since the survey began in 1973 and one-third its all-time high of 51.7 in 1979.
So if violent rhetoric, available 24/7 through all sorts of outlets, is creating a more violence friendly atmosphere, then why are we at the most peaceful moment in thirty years?
Scot is exactly right. Violent hyperbolic metaphors have been part and parcel of the left and right throughout American history. Should Christians be working to lessen this rhetoric? Certainly. Did this event evolve because the political climate of late has been hyperbolic? I’m still waiting for the evidence that points there and I don’t see it. I see a young man with serve mental illness acting out. In saying that this event is likely not related to rhetoric is not to say that rhetoric isn’t important … a conclusion some are unfairly making of Scot’s post. Appropriating the events of Saturday morning to grind a political axe or to demonize your adversaries strikes me as an act of incivility in itself.
What is as disturbing as the violent rhetoric is the reflexive need that so many have to identify a Satan (i.e., political adversaries) to blame and give meaning to a meaningless event. Sometimes tragic things emerge from the hearts of cracked icons that truly are senseless. There is no meaning. What is needed first and foremost is that we grieve with those who mourn and comfort those who have suffered. We need to live in the reality that evil is present among us and is never under our complete control … and then do what we are called to do anyway.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
Scot, another blog post today, that mirrors some of your sentiments here, was written by Dennis Sanders who I believe comments here at times: Stop Making Sense. Sometimes we are too eager to make sense.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 6:37 pm
Sorry. The direct link to Dennis’ article is Stop Making Sense.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 6:40 pm
Michael#42, the violence is down because the masses have violent computer games.
Comment by DRT — January 10, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
Michael, excellent, excellent comments. As always.
The numbers prove the “toxic rhetoric” theory false. Simply false. The rhetoric today is not stimulating violence any more than any other time, and perhaps one could make an argument that the angry rhetoric permits many to take out their anger in (marginally) acceptable ways and less often with violent crimes.
Comment by Scot McKnight — January 10, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
Amen, well said, Scot. (and Solzhenitsyn)
Comment by James — January 10, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
I don’t think you can compare Thomas Paine to Jared Lee Loughner, mainly because I predict Loughner will turn out to be certifiably deranged.
That being said, I think Thomas Paine is actually illustrative of the point made by some – including me – that the rhetoric of violence often leads to actual violence. Paine’s pamphlet made the case for American independence, which almost certainly meant revolution, which meant bloodshed.
I believe there is a difference between Paine and Loughner – not to mention the guys who opened fire at “liberal” churches, the guy who shot the abortion doctor, whoever it was that hung that census worker in Kentucky in 2009, and the militias stocking canned goods and plotting to overthrow the government.
But if you talk to most of those people, I bet they will try to place themselves in a tradition leading all the way back to Thomas Paine and “Common Sense.”
Comment by John Pattison — January 10, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
I guess I should clarify, Scott, that I don’t disagree with your post. I believe you’re right that it we are fundamentally “cracked.” But words have power, as I’m sure you agree, and the rhetoric of violence foments actual violence. Our duty – as Christians and as citizens – is to heal the cracks and to seek fellowship, at least in part through the responsible use of words.
Comment by John Pattison — January 10, 2011 @ 7:46 pm
John, thanks for this.
But I don’t make any connection whatsoever between the alleged perpetrator and Paine. Paine was used for the rhetorical context … not for the person who used violence.
I agree with you that we as followers of Jesus are to promote peace.
But if you read Michael Kruse’s post you will see that the rhetoric today is in a context of less violence than in the past. Notice what that set of facts imply for the toxic rhetoric theory at work.
And, yes, I’m totally in favor of upgrading civility and downgrading the heated rhetoric. But most of it is groupthink and typical political rhetoric.
Comment by Scot McKnight — January 10, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
Good words and a thoughtful piece. Let me just add that “rhetoric” (in my experience) is more an expression of beliefs than an attempt to sway or convince. That moves into the realm of propoganda, which is food for another blog.
We are in stressful times which results in more heated debate, and people are generally frustrated and want solutions and answers and, yes, blame. As Scot said, we’re broken, and these are symproms of that condition. Let’s pay our respects to the families crushed by the delusional acts of a broken person. And first ask, “How can I express myself clearly and concisely without targeting someone else with my anger and frustration?”
Comment by Carl — January 10, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Nate Silver
The Sergent at Arms, for instance, counted just 29 threats against senators in 2009, rather than 49 in 2010. And there was a 300 percent increase in such threats against all members of Congress (both representatives and senators) in the first few months of 2010, according to the same office.
The journalist Ronald Kessler, meanwhile, wrote in his bestselling book that there has been a 400 percent increase in the number of threats against the White House since Barack Obama took office.
And while numbers underscore reduction in violent crime, I’d caution that (a) “reported” not equivalent to “actual” and that (b) we’re at a juncture with global net access
Comment by Naum — January 10, 2011 @ 8:06 pm
One elephant in the room we seem to be ignoring is that there is also a history in our nation’s political discourse of using tragic events as starting points for thinking further about issues and possible legislation. Both sides do this, so it’s certainly not a “one side accusing the other” kind of thing. It’s simply to observe that there is nothing inherently wrong with speaking about this tragedy (with civility of course) as it pertains to political issues. The idea that anyone would just separate this issue, tragic though it may be, from political discourse is a bit naive based on historical precedent.
Comment by James — January 10, 2011 @ 9:00 pm
#53
“I’d caution that (a) “reported” not equivalent to “actual” …”
The Uniform Crime Report measures incidents of crime reported to law enforcement. Reporting for murder is near 100%. For other crimes, reporting to police is less than 100%. Furthermore, from time to time, law enforcement targets enforcement of certain crimes over others. That can influence the number of people who report particular types of crime to police. Increased enforcement can mean that incidents of a particular crime are declining while the reports of such crimes are increasing. Conversely, a particular type of crime could be increasing while fewer people are reporting it.
The National Crime Victimization Survey is a tool that attempts to get around these distortions. It uses confidential survey methods to learn the amount of particular crimes people experience, whether they report them to the police or not. No one suggests it is perfect but it is the standard in the field for measuring actual incidents of crime. The NCVS makes it quite clear that we are at a forty year ebb in violent crime.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 9:44 pm
#46 DRT
Well, I can tell you this much. When I was in grad school at Eastern University, there was a group of us who would stay up late playing “Risk: The Game of Global Domination.” The Mennonites in the group always won! I attributed it to sublimation of violence by my pacifist friends into playing violent games.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 9:48 pm
Michael, #43, thank you for the statistics regarding physical violence trends. What I find worth considering as a caveat to those statistics is that physical violence is not the only form of violence in society, but it is the form that is the most readily measured. Measuring physical violence and seeing a downward trend does not, IMO, equate to a societal decrease in violence. There is economic violence, greed, and wide-scale fraud (illegal and legal) in businesses and market places. There is the psychic violence of alienation, loss of relationships, diminishing value of commitments. Of course, there is also verbal violence – which includes that which has been discussed. To say that words do not harm others, sometimes irretrievably (except by God’s healing hand), is not a factual statement. Violent words intimidate and undermine self, society and relationships. Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:21-ff should have some bearing on our considerations: “You’re familiar with the command to the ancients, ‘Do not murder.’ I’m telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother ‘idiot!’ and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell ‘stupid!’ at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill.”
We, of all people, should know that all that is death is not merely physical. We live within the valley shadowed with death, in all its manifestations. Let’s not interpret statistics on physical violence with unspiritual eyes, please!
Comment by Ann F-R — January 10, 2011 @ 9:50 pm
#57 Ann
I’m not suggesting that there are not other ways we do damage to people, but violence is traditionally used to indicate application of physical force. You can’t apply physical force to inanimate realities, so I’d say we can’t literally do violence to them … though metaphorically we can speak of “violence” being done.
The issue at hand here is whether or not hyperbolic rhetoric using violent metaphors has led to a more (literally and physically) violent culture. It has not.
I’ll also add that if we were experiencing an unprecedented rise in massive corruption, greed, alienation, and metaphorical violence then we should see it evidenced in a deteriorating quality of life for people. Yet, life expectancy at birth is improving worldwide, per capita income is growing, global inequality as measured by the GINI index has been narrowing for thirty years, the percentage of the world living on less than a dollar a day is shrinking, and the last quarter of the 20th Century has been an era of the fewest people (globally) dying in war. Large majorities in most countries report that they are happy with their lives.
I’m not saying that there aren’t challenges or that the evils you highlight aren’t present. I’m not saying that the current economic downturn is not painful. But I am suggesting that there is a parochialism of the present going on with many … believing that what is happening in our lifetimes is somehow exceptional simply because we are without the experiential knowledge of other eras as a basis for comparison. A host of measures shows that we are living through nothing short of a global human renaissance.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — January 10, 2011 @ 11:51 pm
@Michael W. Kruse, #58 wrote: The issue at hand here is whether or not hyperbolic rhetoric using violent metaphors has led to a more (literally and physically) violent culture. It has not.
Past results cited by you are not indicative of the past 2 years — that is the gist of the Nate Silver article I posted which clearly shows a marked uptick in threats and violence. And there have been a rash of mass shootings (or thwarted or stillborn attempts) over the past few years).
Comment by Naum — January 10, 2011 @ 11:59 pm
I am a big fan of the “Jesus Creed” Love God 100%, love your neighbor as you love yourself.
I confess that I do not like to be the object of violence.
I confess that I do not like to be demonized.
I confess that words often hurt me worse than a physical punch. Punches I received 30 years ago no longer hurt, while words from that time still sting me.
I confess that I have strong, “I’m righteous” political opinions. Yet, if I am to love my neighbor as I love myself, then I must NOT demonize them.
So I’m trying to follow Jesus. As I noted earlier, Someone who matters the most to me said that calling a child of God an “idiot” means I am a murderer. Therefore, even before the violent shooting and the “blame games,” I strongly oppose violent rhetoric. As I interpret Christ’s message, and hear His Living Voice right now, words do matter. Violent words often do lead to actual violence, or the justification of violence. I cannot support such rhetoric, whether it comes from my political allies or my political opponents.
Comment by Timothy — January 11, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
I just posted the following on Michael’s blog.
Michael,
you’re comparing apples and oranges. How about statistics and numbers on things like:
number of death threats received by representatives and senators in 2000 and 2010;
number of people who brought handguns to town hall meetings staged by congresspersons in 2000 and 2010;
number of times candidates for Congress talked about “Second Amendment solutions” to the problems of government or the number of times the governor of Texas asserted the right of Texas to secede from the Union?
You get the drift.
Comment by Jeff L — January 12, 2011 @ 12:41 am
Michael, I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’ve made a solid case, even statistically, for this statement, after the parentheses. (IMHO, the Biblical case is nonexistent, AFAICS. Would you agree?) You wrote, The issue at hand here is whether or not hyperbolic rhetoric using violent metaphors has led to a more (literally and physically) violent culture. It has not.
As you commented later in #58, ISTM that we are not able to see the spiritual trajectory & eventual statistically-valid outcomes of our current environment. There is a period, as James notes, where sin “grows” (Jas. 1:14-15) before it is full-grown and brings death. You said, with good insight that, But I am suggesting that there is a parochialism of the present going on with many … believing that what is happening in our lifetimes is somehow exceptional simply because we are without the experiential knowledge of other eras as a basis for comparison.
Yes, I agree with the critique of human parochialism. It’s the following statement I am not as sanguine about, and which counters many downward trends visible in families, relationships & communities, although only sporadically evident (yet) in economic & other statistical measures of well-being. A host of measures shows that we are living through nothing short of a global human renaissance.
I see evidence in the financial markets trends toward accumulation of money for the insiders vs. service of customers & facilitating good business, since the mid-1970′s when I began work in capital markets. I see evidence in family discord and increasing inability to resolve conflict in healthy and relation-deepening ways (from work w/ DV victims & reconciliation beginning in the 1980′s). Yes, this is my anecdotal life-limited experience, yet it seems verifiable from the perspective of biblical wisdom on both individual and corporate/community levels. We have yet to see the outcome of the present rhetorical irresponsibility on our nation’s psyche. Our desire leads us astray when we fail to seek & obey God, then our words may steer us straight or awry, and outcomes will become visible over time. As a hospice chaplain, I see the ends & outcomes more often than most folks.
Comment by Ann F-R — January 12, 2011 @ 9:04 am