The rightwing blogosphere has been triumphantly broadcasting the news anonymous claim that Amy Bishop was a socialist as vindication that the left are hypocrites.
Let me be the first to say that in this day and age, her party affiliation is relevant, and it's fair game. Except that as far as we know, her political leanings were not motivation for the shootings. Nor was "growing dissatisfaction with the government."
And it's also important to note that her political beliefs don't include stockpiling guns and ammo because of some paranoid delusion that Obama is going to repeal the 2nd amendment.
When a gun nut goes on a shooting spree, his attitude toward guns is significant.
When a pyromaniac joins a fire department, his attitude toward arson is significant.
When a right-to-lifer bombs an abortion clinic, his attitude toward choice is significant.
When a Socialist turns into an embezzling treasurer, or gives the company's profits over to charity, then his attitude toward socio-economic matters is significant.
But really, when a Socialist goes on a shooting rampage, what connection does ideology have to do with it other than present an opportunity for people to slam Socialism?
In fact, the only thing that's significant about her ideology is that she wasn't a rightwing fanatic, like all the others have been.
If it's more notable when a shooter is a Conservative versus a Liberal, it's because of the frequency and reliability that any given rampage shooter is a rightwing fanatic.
From a statistical point of view, ideology is interesting.
From a motivational point of view, ideology can be a key factor.
Since the right wing advocates gun possession for any idiot who can sign their name, it will always be more significant when it's a right winger doing the shooting because lack of gun control is central to their ideology.
And the other party has been called 'peaceniks.'
Now, it's relevant to state that she is on the far left side of the political scale, like pH 1. But a lot of us see it more like a litmus test to check if it's a right wing job since 9 out of 10 of them are. So the first question is, is it fair to use a litmus test to check if it's a right wing job? And the second question is, what does it say about the "peacenik" movement when one of their ranks turns out to be a homicidal maniac? If anything, her actions support the left's stance on gun control.
Really, every time the Republicans gleefully points to this shooter's ideology and exclaim "Socialist!" the only thing they are pointing out is the right's failure to take responsibility for their pro-gun agenda. When you advocate arming everyone to the teeth, and then some of them actually use those guns, then you need to somehow square your ideology with the facts on the ground. Oh, I know, their answer is that if everyone on that campus had a gun then the shooter wouldn't have been able to get as far as she did. When your talking points come from Archie Bunker you might want to revisit the logic behind them.
When the shooter comes from an ideology that advocates gun control, then that person may be a hypocrite to the nth degree, but it doesn't allow anyone to blast an entire political party which still believes there would be less violence with less guns.
UPDATE:
In the comments, the purity police have taken me to task for equating "socialism" with "liberalism" and the fact that both of these labels were applied with scant proof. The crux of my article lies not in pinpointing her exact ideology - the main theme was that she wasn't a republican. So please, no more lectures on what it means to be a "socialist" -- if you go there, then complete your argument by contending that she was a republican. Otherwise ... what's your point?
As far as the unsubstantiated use of political labels goes, I was using terms that her former students used to describe her.