Am I really dumb, or is there something illogical, and hypocritical too, about conservatives arguing that there is no connection between their violent speech and the shootings in Tucson (or elsewhere, for that matter)? Here's what got me thinking -- I'm curious about your thoughts.
The day after the shooting, I heard an interview between Sheriff Dupnik and a Fox News anchor. The anchor asked Mr. Dupnik if he was aware of any direct evidence that showed that the shooter acted after listening to any particular right wing speaker inciting violence. Of course, Sheriff Dupnik couldn't point to a particular example that showed a cause and effect, suggesting that without such evidence, there couldn't be a plausible connection between the speech and the tragic act. That seems to be the basic approach that most of the right wing has taken since the shooting: This guy was crazy, and the shooting was the act of a crazy person. Since you cannot show the shooter was acting in response to a particular statement, you cannot show those statements incited violence. You can't blame us, because our words did not cause the effect.
Since that time, I've thought about the logical underpinnings of that argument. If I were a logician, philosopher or psychologist, I could probably make a more theoretical critique, but I have another argument against it, which I think is just as powerful: Since President Obama was inaugurated, we have heard a steady stream of blistering attacks against him, starting with Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" speech and Senator DeMint's "Waterloo" warning, progressing to the rising of the Tea Party and the angry outbursts at Congressional town halls during the summer of 2009, there was a constant drumbeat from conservative editorialist, bloggers, politicians and others, opposing the President and Democrats in general. Surrounding those comments was a sea of vitriolic and often violent slogans and visuals, not the least of which was Sarah Palin's bulls-eyes.
Ask anyone -- including these conservative commentators themselves -- and they will credit this tsunami of speech for helping them to win the November 2010 election. I don't think there is any serious question that this unified, and often violent, language helped to motivate conservatives to go to the polls and vote for their candidates. Leave aside for a moment the actual content of this speech (although I find "don't retreat, reload!" to be extremely offensive). Think about the effect -- is there anyone out there who would argue that this speech did not contribute mightily to getting the right wing to the polls in November? I think you won't find anyone. Indeed, on the contrary, in the weeks since the election (but before the shooting), we've heard many on the right congratulate themselves on the effectiveness of their tactics -- including their speech -- as critical components to their victory last fall.
Here's my point: If, in fact, this speech drove conservative voters to the polls, then why is it inconceivable that it might also drive someone to shoot his Congressional representative? There is no direct causal connection between any specific word or statement that drove anyone to the polls, but there is unanimous opinion that the totality of the effect was to do so. If that is true, then why wouldn't the same violent words be capable of driving a person -- even a crazy person -- to kill? Otherwise, then all of the George Wills, Glenn Becks, and Bill O'Reillys will have to take the position that their words and actions are not capable of causing any result, meaning that they are engaged in a pointless act every time they open their mouths. I don't think they will agree with that. But if they think their words can shape someone's acts when he has a voting lever in his hand, they must also agree that those same words can have an effect when someone has a gun in his hand.
Conservatives cannot have it both ways: They cannot claim that impassioned speech contributed to their electoral success, and deny that that same speech may have led to this shooting. What do you think?