The recent assassination attempt against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that took the lives of so many innocent victims has finally allowed for an examination of the crimson tide of violent rhetoric flowing from the depths of the right wing. As happens so often, what passes for traditional media has done its usual milquetoast duty to position itself above the fray by claiming that both sides are equally responsible for this rash of violence that seems to be by people inspired by right-wing figures into fervent belief that the government is going to take their guns away any time now, or that the Tides Foundation will suck America dry from the inside like a ravenous tapeworm.
But when the starburst-inducing face of modern American conservatism puts gunsights surveyor's marks on a website targeting the recently victimized congresswoman for political extinction and follows that up with ill-conceived accusations of blood libel, such a charade becomes far harder to maintain. Former Congressman Steve Driehaus of Ohio--one of the freshman Democrats high on the GOP's target list of seats to take over in 2010--knows this all too well.
Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.
"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"
Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."
Congressman Driehaus is entirely correct: politicians and political commentators have a moral obligation to their political opponents and the subjects of their commentary to be far more careful about ensuring that the words and images they choose cannot be construed to be advocacy for violence. And if their commentary and advocacy is proving to result in violence--as has been shown directly in the case of the assassinated Dr. Tiller or the unstable right-wing would-be assassin with a blood vendetta against the Tides Foundation and the ACLU--then those figures absolutely need to dial down that rhetoric. If they fail to do so, those figures will, and should, be accused of intentionally trolling for assassins and silencing proponents' opposing viewpoint through fear that the deadly spotlight of Glenn Beck or others like him will fall on them next.
Implying a license to kill to the craziest among us is only half of the problem, however. The far more dangerous aspect of the exaggerations and hyperventilations of the right wing is that the overall threshold for political violence is gradually being reduced, even when no direct calls for violence are being made. It's bad enough when the House Minority Leader calls one of his colleagues a "dead man" for voting a particular way, or when the Tea Party's highest inspiration paints scope sights over its top (political) targets; even under an ideal climate of political civility, these instances could be enough to incite the paranoia of a lone gunman just looking to be a hero.
But circumstances are less than ideal because the public is being primed to accept the necessity of violence to achieve political ends. Under most any other circumstance in American history, the contemplation of violence to achieve political ends--the classic definition of terrorism, incidentally--would have resulted in immediate ostracism and marginalization. The Overton Window of ways to achieve political objectives has never been open to murder as an acceptable option, but the constant mendacious fearmongering of the right wing--consistently unchallenged by traditional outlets that ought to know better--is inexorably changing that.
"Death Panels" are perhaps the perfect example. Right-wing media darlings managed to whip their base into a frenzy through absolutely unfounded claims that the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would allow the government to kill their relatives and "pull the plug on grandma" over the objections of the people concerned. At one point in 2009, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, nearly half the country believed that death panels were indeed likely to happen as a result of health insurance reform. Now, if you were truly, sincerely convinced that a recently signed bill would actually allow the government to kill your innocent grandmother over her objections and yours, then refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants might begin to seem a little less ignoble. Similarly, if you were genuinely persuaded that our duly elected President Barack Obama was actually a communist, Marxist, radical Muslim, wannabe Black Panther liberation theologist out to take revenge on white people, or all of the above, then you too might find yourself at least partially responsible for the fact that the number of threats against Obama is significantly higher than the number against George W. Bush.
In his alarmed commentary on the aforementioned death panel poll, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post said it best:
I don’t want to make too much of that — people could be getting their “death panel” info from the internets or talk radio other sources — and as a general rule, reporters hate it when you blame this kind of thing on the media. But if we agree that the media’s general role is informing the public, clearly something’s wrong here.
Right-wing lies and exaggerations are more than just a Rovian campaign tactic that stirs up emotions and turns out the vote. They serve to shift the Overton Window of political solutions toward the acceptability of violence. When this is combined with major media figures that seem to delight in provoking discussion of reloading, as well as a base that seems to fantasize about killing people they don't like, an escalation of political violence should come as no surprise. And fixing one problem alone won't do the trick.