More on Tucson and Using Guns in Debate

After reading some of the editorial letters and articles recently about the tenor of political debate leading up to and following the Tucson shootings, it may be necessary for me to reiterate my position. Some of the letters I read pick on President Obama, trying to make it sound as if he, of all people, were promoting a climate of political violence. I consider these opinions to be sheer nonsense and dismiss them out of hand. Others emphasize that the perpetrator of the shootings in Tucson was mentally disturbed, not acting with a deliberate, thought-out political agenda against anyone. These people tend to put all of the recent gun-toting and gun-shooting in political rallies and ads into the context of "open and rigorous debate", appealing to their readers' innate sense of freedom of expression. I don't automatically dismiss this argument, because it contains elements worth considering.

I'm all for open and rigorous debate, and it's true that the alleged shooter in Arizona seemed to be mentally unhinged, to put it very mildly. But you can debate people, even getting personally insulting about it, without bringing the implied threat of using guns and violence into the dialogue. As a matter of fact, those who bring firearms into any political discussion, be it symbolically in an advertisement or literally at a rally, have emphatically ENDED the debate, as far as THEY are concerned. They are saying that this is the way they feel, they are not changing their view, and they will back up their position with a gun. Period.

As for the idea that those who have used guns and cross-hairs in their political messages haven't contributed to the problem because it was a mentally ill person who seems to be responsible for the massacre, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. For the whole point of the recent criticisms directed against using implied violence in ads or on websites against political opponents is based on the assumption that, while rational people may only just be swayed or offended at viewing them, someone with mental or emotional issues may go over the edge, consequently feeling a sense of justification and legitimacy for violently dealing with their paranoid delusions against the "enemy".

Ever since Obama has been president (and even before), paranoia has abounded in the media regarding his beliefs and intentions. The idea has apparently been to whip up as much irrational fear and hatred against this gentle, decent man who, although possibly carrying a more liberal agenda than many would like to see, is simply trying to do his best to help serve his country.

I would like to see political debate rise to the level where issues and philosophies can be debated rationally and respectfully. There ARE people from both the political left and right, both in the media and public office, who could raise the standards of political debate while maintaining their principles. They need to stand up more forcefully and be heard as clear alternatives to the hatemongers and demagogues who are so active and popular today.