Vitriol
in Tucson
In the wake of the crime that struck
Tucson, Arizona on January 8th, 2011, politics and the rhetoric of politics will most definitely emerge from the violence perpetrated
there. In fact, the rhetoric has already begun.
I strongly
believe that for me to sit here and make statements like, “What happened in Arizona is a travesty and tragedy that should
never happened in a free society,” is in-and-of-itself an unfortunate and unnecessary use of rhetorical dialogue. Personally,
I have no doubt that those who possess a sense of justice, fairness, and desire to live in a free society will view the January
8th event as a horrifying testimony to the depravity that a human being can reach. I don’t believe anyone should
feel that they have to rush to a podium to provide some kind of apologetic that they would believe otherwise.
Yet the senseless dialogue has already begun as to “why” such a travesty should occur
or what possibly could have “caused” this event. Pima County, AZ Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik has provided the well-seeded
ground for such discussions to take place.
According to
Sheriff Dupnik, Jared Loughner murdered several people at a political event in Tucson because of bigotry, hate speech, and
political vitriol. Talk show radio hosts and those who want to “tear down the government” do not realize how their
ranting influenced the “unbalanced mind” of someone like Loughner to the point of spurring him into violent action.
Suddenly, those whose political leanings are sympathetic with restricted and limited government are all of sudden put on notice
that their criticisms of said government and political officials have deadly consequences, and thereby responsibilities of
which they are unaware.
One could easily let the emotional moment
of this event lead one to cower and back off his or her critical analysis of government. To do so would be a cowardly act.
Political officials place themselves in the position of debate, controversy, and unpopular opinions. To blame those who want
to dialogue and debate such issues, and debate them heatedly, is the height of irresponsibility. When people can no longer
passionately disagree on issues of war, taxes, and the freedom to live life as one sees fit, without being equated with a
degenerate criminal, then we have not only lost all civility in political debate, but we are also taking a step toward squelching
free speech and the loss of a free society.
I do not know
Sheriff Dupnik’s relation to Gabrielle Giffords, but I’m sure there is a lot of emotion swirling around the loss
and critical injury of people he knows well and with whom he may have close friendships. But if the use of his office to blame
political dialogue for the crime spree that took place in Pima County goes unchallenged – and it will by most of the
mainstream media – then we for sure have become an unthinking people. As Sheriff Dupnik spoke eloquently of bigotry,
hate speech, and vitriol, he castigated those with whom he politically disagreed by insinuating, if not explicitly stating,
that his political opposites were the cause of the January 8th violence.
One wonders if he recognized his own vitriol. We should surmise the conclusion, and I would add insulting and
dangerous conclusions, of his comments. First, those who passionately and heatedly criticize government are vitriolic hate
mongers who place political officials in danger by exercising their free speech. Never mind that most libertarians (and that
is the position from which I write) are anti-war and for peaceful means of resolving political conflicts. One also wonders
if Dupnik has in mind the immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070 or the healthcare bill that Giffords supported. No doubt that
regarding these laws, there is a heated political disagreement over the impact of illegal immigration and along the Arizona-Mexico
border and the road to national healthcare. Is such heated disagreement the “cause” of mass murder? And is it
not vitriolic in-and-of-itself to accuse those with whom you politically disagree that by the very impassioned nature of their
disagreement with you, they are ipso facto the cause of mindless, senseless crimes?
And perhaps, Dupnik doesn’t recognize the far-reaching effects of his own vitriol. Once again advocates of banning
guns will come out of the woodwork utilizing this crime as a rhetorical tool to bludgeon law-abiding gun owners. Likewise,
because Gabrielle Giffords supported Obama healthcare, those who passionately and heatedly opposed it are now the authors
of the very kind of hate speech with which Dupnik desires to equate them.
Where was all this compassionate anti-vitriol when Bush was in office? (And as a Libertarian, I am primarily against
Bush in both domestic and foreign policies.) For some time now, the progressive left has stated some impassioned disagreement
with America’s foreign policies in the Middle East, most of which I agree. But perhaps we need to rethink some things
here. Maybe the heated rhetoric around America’s foreign policy “influenced” the 9/11 hijackers’ “unbalanced
minds” and spurred them on to fly two planes into the World Trade Center.
But we’ve come a long way, baby, in respect to 9/11. Now we “know” via much sensitivity training
and multicultural education that the 9/11 hijackers were “extremists”. And who knows what extremists might do?
And as far as being Muslim, well we shouldn’t over-generalize the actions of these distorted culprits to all Muslims,
who are mostly moderate and wouldn’t think of murdering innocent citizens. To do is the very definition of bigotry.
Yet where will be the cries about bigotry, hate speech, and vitriol when Loughner will be displayed
in all his evil splendor as a representative of gun owners, First Amendment defenders, gold standard advocates, concerned
citizens about immigration, and those who passionately believe in severely limited and restricted government?
When such generalizations occur, and they will, I hope Dupnik uses his official position once
again and takes some time to address the issue.
