 |
| President Kennedy assassinated in 1963 |
Those of us who have raised or taught children know that when there is an altercation between two or three or more children, usually no one takes responsibility for it. The fingers point instead to one another, without anyone admitting or finding out who really started trouble. Often everyone gets punished when the culprit is unknown. And if that culprit is discovered, then the children begin to talk about "everyone is doing it,"especially if that guilty person has a level of control and/or popularity within the group.
We respond to political figures just like we respond to children's arguments. We punish the group without acknowledging the source of trouble. Often we don't even try to find that source with the argument "everyone does it."
In the case of the episodes of gun violence, demonstrated by the high-profile shooting of Gabriel Gifford, Congresswoman from Arizona a few years ago, the school shooting at Sandy Hook, and most recently in Washington State, the atmosphere of hate has been festering for some time.
Clarence W. Dupnik, the sheriff of the county where Gabriel Gifford was killed, was reported to say shortly afterward in a news conference,about an "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry,"helping to fuel violence. He spoke strongly of that atmosphere as provoking those with serious mental health problems to act out their violent fantasies. An atmosphere of hate, he said, facilitates problems. He tells us we must all get at the source.
The source of that,according to the reporting of the Christian Science Monitor, is the extreme rhetoric, building up since 2006. Fox News fosters much of it with its news "commentators," hardly news at all. Whether that is Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin, the right remains central to this ugly speech in a very special way.
For example, as David Neiwart pointed out in Crooks and Liars, how Glenn Beck called for kicking California out of the Union, and also referred to Barack Obama as a Marxist, a communist, a socialist and later a fascist. Emails circulate these rumors, and the larger in bulk they become, the more people believe them before hearing the truth.
The argument 'everyone does it' while applauding the angry and sarcastic rhetoric, reinforces bullying and ugly arguments in places where there is vulnerability for that sort of thing. Folks hear aggressive commentators, and people using epithets in reference to public figures; and then its echoes by their political representatives, and then they believe what they hear. Louisiana is one of those vulnerable places where this takes place. As an example, a few years ago, shortly after Representative John Fleming of Louisiana won his seat in the House, he encouraged separatism and referred to Obama as a socialist during one of his first meetings with constituents following the election. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana did the same during the health care debates. Both represent central and northern Louisiana where the Klan flourished and still has many members. Yet few in Louisiana in the press have pointed to this aggressive language as initiating political bullying and the lessons from history it undercuts in the process.
In fact that lack of admission of who starts what is the problem in politics now, just as it is with bullying in the classroom or the office. After the heat of the present discussions following the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford and the shooting at Sandy Hook and in Washington State, people will likely continue the same response. Fingers will point around the room, not getting at the source. In fact after the recent midterm election there was a raft of pictures and political statements attacking not just President Obama's leadership but the character of his wife, Michelle, and elements of their private life. This has been ongoing since Obama was first elected in 2008, but the increase in bullying continues in a climate where the free-for-all seems to be the accepted standard on social media as well as discourse among people everywhere. Strongly worded epithets are part of the verbal violence that psychologists underline as personally abusive. On a broader scale, the same type of rhetoric creates a national atmosphere of verbal abuse that can lead to the perpetuation of violence.
The rhetoric has been so abusive that newspapers remind people to keep their comments moderate and to avoid angry, personal attacks on the President and others, especially in relationship to politics.
The concern about violent speech and abusive language was part of the discussion following the death of President John F. Kennedy, who was shot in Dallas, Texas 61 years ago. Kennedy, who had become identified with civil rights and social liberalism, was called socialist and Communist at the time by anti-Communist Protestant groups in particular, especially in the South where the angry rhetoric against integration was at its zenith. In reflection of the events of that time, Forbes magazine writes that modern Democrats would see Kennedy as more like former President Reagan, however, as he was adamantly anti- Communist and although deeply religious, not a pawn of the Catholic Church. As the images of mourners were shown on television, some folks wondered aloud whether or not the verbal violence created the atmosphere that allowed for the assassination of the President.
Talk show Stan Solomon offers the extreme speech recited in generalities by others not so extreme but who listen and believe that if it is said often enough, it must be true. Solomon has observed that Obama is a Muslim, married to a transgender woman or a man whom Obama knew in college and that the aim of the President is to help impose Shariah law on America. He and the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America then declared they were preparing themselves, and others should as well, to fight back.
The Southern Poverty Law Center wonders also about the present political atmosphere and the welfare of the current President, Barack Obama.
Experts at the Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center have for some time said hate speech has increased and hate groups as well. SPLC has been especially concerned about the hate speech from anti-immigrant groups, many of which exist in Arizona.
And psychologists in numerous citations continue to remind us of the hurtful nature of verbal abuse and its risks to individual welfare, abuse that can create a lifetime of trouble that can exceed physical abuse. Could it also perpetuate physical violence on a wider scale? Experts maintain it is possible that it has facilitated the aggressive nature of government and personal interaction as well as the type of school shootings that the socially deprived or emotionally disturbed commit in response.
Instead of countering this with a change of behavior, the defense is, "Well everyone does it." But the truth, in fact, is everyone doesn't. The problem of bullying and bad political and social behavior starts somewhere and has to be stopped. Those who refuse to examine the source, and instead say "everyone does it" allow the bullying and the violent speech to thrive.
It starts in childhood, continues on the playground, and never ends unless those who want bullying to end in all its forms tackle the source itself and will not be satisfied with pointing fingers.
