The Aftermath

“The Aftermath”
by Christopher Boundy
January 10, 2011

In the reporting that followed the shootings in Tucson, Arizona many state and federal legislators who knew Representative Gabrielle Giffords were interviewed. One common theme that emerged, besides a heartfelt admiration for Rep. Giffords and sympathy for the victims of the attacks, was that each of Giffords’ colleagues had received violent threats in the past. These threats came without regard to whether the individual worked at the state or federal level, and without regard to party affiliation or ideology. It was a sober reminder of the dangers that all our elected officials face in the performance of their duties.

Given this reminder of the courage our legislators regularly display, it was disappointing to see how quickly the partisan jockeying began following the shootings. Liberals and various news commentators quickly began drawing a connection between the sharp rhetoric currently permeating our national politics and the violence that occurred on January 8th. It did not take long for Sarah Palin’s famous poster, identifying vulnerable Congressional districts with crosshairs, to be unearthed and spread across the Internet. Although Palin herself has remained notably silent, other conservatives quickly mounted a defense and began countercharging that the shootings, a national tragedy, were not the kind of things that should be politicized to push an ideological agenda. The fact that Jared Lee Loughner listed the Communist Manifesto as a favorite novel was duly noted.

What the shooters motivations actually were is unclear and probably will remain so for some time. Those motivations will undoubtedly be the subject of intense investigation over the coming months by federal and local law enforcement officials. But, right now, it’s unclear whether Loughner followed national politics at all, or if he even knows who Sarah Palin is.

In a way, that makes Loughner’s actions even more frightening. They were the arbitrary actions of a young man who is either completely delusional or deeply evil. But the very fact that Loughner’s actions were so despicable casts a revealing light on the current level of partisanship in our capital. Republicans, Democrats and their backers may consider their opponents to be enemies. They may consider them to be wrongheaded, dishonest, and foolish. Even devious. But the overheated rhetoric and inflamed tempers in Washington pale next to the example of hatred that took place in Tucson only days ago. Similarly, while it is surely premature to blame sharp political rhetoric for Loughner’s actions, the attacks themselves underscore why such comments have no place in modern political conversation. It’s difficult to now think of a candidate for office suggesting that their supporters “reload” when confronting political opposition.

In the end, Loughner’s attack on Rep. Giffords was an attack on democracy itself. The attack directly threatened the face-to-face interaction that is necessary to a representative democracy and both legislators and their constituents will be tempted to avoid exposing themselves to similar dangers in the future in the future. But there is no hiding from some threats. And that fact should drive us together, not pull us apart.