Post-Shooting Blame: Music versus Politics

A commenter on my last post (and by a commenter, I mean the sole commenter) brought up an interesting point that had crossed my mind prior to posting. He/she said:

You might be able to create an interesting parallel to the blame on music for various school shootings. 

Who's responsible if some people are unable to handle a message?

I think the most salient example of blaming music for various school shootings is Columbine. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up their Colorado high school back on April 20, 1999 the fingers began pointing at Brian Warner aka Marylin Manson. In fact, politicians began lining up behind anti-Manson groups that aimed to discourage people from listening to the singer. Manson, out of respect for the victims of the Columbine massacre, canceled the rest of his concert tour, while making it clear that he felt that music and goth culture were being scapegoated.

Other musicians caught flack, including bands like KMFDM and Rammstein. At the time, I believed that the arguments that bands like this contribute to an atmosphere that would facilitate a school shooting or some other act of mass violence to be ridiculous. I still hold this view.

There is one absolutely crucial difference between talking heads like Palin and Limbaugh and musicians like Marylin Manson or Eminem (another target of blame for various school shootings). Palin and Limbaugh masquerade as serious people; in other words, they are reported on in the media as having something to add to a national conversation about politics or society. People like Marylin Manson and Eminem are entertainers. They're not here to get out some political message or get us to vote for one person or another. People turn to music and entertainment to get away from all the crap they have to put up with on a daily basis, not to learn more about it.

Now, in reality, Palin and Limbaugh are on the same plane as a Marylin Manson or Eminem entertainment-wise. They get paid millions of dollars to entertain. Unfortunately, given the lackluster media America turns to for information, Palin and Limbaugh are treated as something more than entertainment. They're treated as leaders of a conservative movement fed up with anything remotely liberal or centrist. If they are going to revel in this role (which they clearly have) as well as enrich themselves from it, it should come as no surprise that they will be held responsible for helping to expand what Ross Douthat called "the darkness" last Sunday.

And then there's personal responsibility. Let's not forget who's really in trouble here. Jared Loughner is behind bars without bail. Palin is not being arrested or fined or anything like that. She is being criticized for being a hack, and rightfully so. People pointing out that Palin used violent imagery on her website or that Rush Limbaugh had an extremely violent billboard is not "blood-libel" (a term used out of sheer ignorance on Palin's part rather than malice). The statements saying "Violent imagery like this is not appropriate in the wake of the Tucson tragedy," misses the point. It was not appropriate before Representative Giffords was shot and it remains inappropriate today.

Jared Loughner is clearly a nutjob. I would argue he is unable to handle many things, the least of which is violent imagery by leading political blowhards. But if this is the case, why arm someone with this type of message? This would be like me giving every person in America a gun and then when violence breaks out escaping any type of responsibility by saying, "Well, clearly these people could not handle the responsibility of a firearm."

I think it bears repeating: Sarah Palin is not to blame for the Tucson tragedy. She is to blame for adding to increasingly violent rhetoric surrounding politics. Take the Tom and Bill example from Monday. Tom wanted Bill to get hit by a bus. Bill got hit by a bus. Obviously Tom didn't cause Bill to get hit by the bus, but he's still a jerk for saying it.

Was Loughner influenced by the rhetoric of "leaders" like Palin and Limbaugh? We'll never know because his mind is so messed up that anything he says is suspect. What we do know is that Palin put a gun sight over Giffords' district and Giffords was shot in the head. If you want to use all of this violent imagery and then violence occurs, be ready to deal with a lot of scrutiny, whether you were directly a part of it or not. To quote Representative Giffords: "When people do that they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."

Photo - Rush Limbaugh billboard in Tucson, AZ (Mediaite)

Should Sarah Palin Be Blamed for the Giffords Shooting?

No. At least not more than the individual who hopes that someone they do not like gets hit by a bus, only to have that happen. What Sarah Palin can be blamed for is her callousness and inability to admit wrongdoing in the wake of an act that, given the trajectory of extremist rhetoric that has scarred political discourse, was sadly inevitable.

Back in March Palin put up a map of Congressional districts held by Democrats that she wanted to be overtaken by Republicans in the midterm election. She chose the unfortunate imagery of gunsights to point out the districts. At the time she was heavily criticized at the time for this move by many (including me). She did not back down, instead Tweeting after the health care vote, "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page." Luckily for those uninjured in the recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, alleged shooter Jared L. Loughner was tackled before reloading a second clip of his Glock.

The excuse being paraded around Palin headquarters as of late–that the sights over Giffords' and others' Congressional districts were surveyor's sights, not gun sights–is insultingly weak. Palin's a well-documented gun enthusiast. Her passion for Abraham Lincoln's pre-presidential occupation? Not so much. Her camp's insistence that the sights are simply surveyor symbols is akin to Matt Hale claiming that his use of a swastika refers to the ancient Buddhist symbol, not the Third Reich.

But the most chilling thing about Palin's gun sight map is that Representative Giffords herself commented on it back in March while talking to MSNBC. In that interview she said, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but, the thing is, the way that she has it depicted is she has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."



Let's repeat for reptition's sake: Sarah Palin is not to blame for inspiring Jared Loughner to try to kill Representative Giffords. Has Palin contributed to a political landscape that has become increasingly hyperbolic and extreme? Yes. Has she inappropriately used violent gun imagery? Yup. Has she unapologetically defended her use of this imagery, even in spite of the Giffords shooting? Without a doubt. It's for these reasons that Palin deserves scrutiny and should be ashamed of herself.

Take the hit-by-a-bus example I started this post with. If Tom wishes Bill to get hit by a bus, and Bill does, Tom will probably feel pretty bad. If Tom publicly states this wish for Bill to get hit by a bus to all of his friends and anyone else who will listen, and then Bill does get hit by a bus, what are those people going to think of Tom? Obviously Tom didn't make Bill get hit by a bus, but the simple expression of it is inappropriate and made more so by Bill's accident. Same with Palin. You want to put gun sights over Giffords district, and then tell people to not retreat but reload, and it happens that Giffords gets shot? You better be able to put your tail between your legs and admit you were wrong and petty and immature, not insult our intelligence by telling us you didn't mean what you really meant.

Ross Douthat had an excellent column in the New York Times yesterday about the tragedy. He points out previous homicidal shooters (Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer) and notes that they were not necessarily motivated by politics. Instead they were mentally ill, grasped by some delusion that led them to kill (or attempt to kill). With the reports of Loughner coming out, it seems that in all likelihood he will join these famous assassinators–not motivated by politics specifically, but more by an unknown mental phantasm. Douthat has one portion of his column that struck me:

When our politicians and media loudmouths act like fools and zealots, they should be held responsible for being fools and zealots. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the darkness that always waits to swallow up the unstable and the lost.

I agree that politicians should not be held responsible for "the darkness" that Douthat alludes to. This darkness has always existed and will always exist no matter what politicians do. But what happens when politicians and others contribute to this darkness? What kind of responsibility should they shoulder?

Photo - 2009 Sarah Palin calendar (Wall Street Journal)