Extremists have existed in our political discourse for centuries.
It used to be that fringe groups would publish manifestos read by a few dozen people predisposed to join them, or perhaps small groups or cells that would find their way to one another and band together.
Sometimes, they would have enough basis in perceived reality that they would take hold as a political movement for a short period of time (the anti-masonic Know-Nothings and Father Coughlin to name a couple).
As technology advanced, you found them calling into late-night low wattage AM radio stations.
That has changed drastically in the last decade. Now extremism has mainstreamed into prime time.
There has been talk about the "One World Order" since the League of Nations days. There has been talk of liberals as "Communist threat" since before I was alive. There have been Ted Kaczynskis and others who think they have found the answer - if only people would listen - that finally resort to violence to "be heard".
For the most part, these have been fringe beliefs, fringe people. Speaking publicly about them branded you as well outside the mainstream, especially by the vast majority of our elected leaders and our journalistic pundit class. Something and someone to be avoided.
Today, we find it on prime time, five days a week, on a major cable news network. Instead of being something on the fringe, today it is sponsored by major beer companies (drink responsibly!) and food manufacturers (its what's for dinner!).
Not long ago, it would have been unheard of for anyone with a major platform to insinuate that the President of the United States wasn't legitimate, or that armed revolution may be called for if a bill passes.
I go back to the early 90's - to GOPAC lead by Newt Gingrich - to make my point, but not the point you might think.
Many of us remember his infamous list of words that caused quite the stir. These were words that he encouraged Republicans to use when talking about Democrats.
decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...
endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...
stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage
When I first went to look up this list, I found myself taken aback. Sure, there are a few words that are over the line ("traitors" being a big one).
But take a close look at that list and compare it to what you hear in today's political discourse from the right, and it's almost quaint. I found myself realizing that we have gone down quite a deep slope since this list that so outraged people less than 20 years ago.
Along with the changes in discourse, there has been a change in what is acceptable in politics.
When I started in politics, if someone were to go into our Republican opponents office and talk about "2nd Amendment remedies" or "if ballots don't work, bullets will.", they would have taken down their information and the campaign manager would have called us to let us know about the threat and we would have worked together to decide how to handle it, and we would have done the same.
Now it's some of the candidates themselves that are using the language, and it is filtering down to the rank and file. It gets repeated on the only news station that they watch anymore.
And it has become the new acceptable norm.
There has been plenty of talk about Tucson and rhetoric. Lots of finger pointing. Personally, having seen the You Tube videos and seen the interviews with friends and people that knew him, I don't think there is a causation to be made - at least in this particular case.
But we can't afford, as a nation, to allow that to let us sweep this conversation under the rug. We have a responsibility as a civilized society to look at the changes just within the last decade at what is acceptable and what isn't.
There is a reason that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't simply saying "In light of this weekends tragic events, and in hindsight, I regret some of the language or symbols I have used in the heat of the moment. While this shooter was obviously deranged and I don't believe that it led to this tragedy, I don't want anyone to mistakenly believe that I in any way condone violence for political ends or for any reason" followed by some benign statement about "working together to move the nation forward".
And that reason is this: As long as people that want to lead our nation or hold the microphone are willing and allowed to us threats of violence to attain money and/or power, they will not back down from using it. Its not going to be as easy as just saying "we need to cool down the rhetoric" because of this. The reality is that the people using this rhetoric are not shunned anymore, they are rewarded.
They make millions of dollars a year for their radio and tv shows and books. People like Ann Coulter are invited on to network news shows to give the "Conservative perspective" and treated like serious people in today's climate. Politicians that call for an "Armed and Dangerous" society in response to a climate bill are interviewed and covered ad nauseum - and therefore garner huge followings. And huge bank accounts for their campaigns.
And this has me in a state of sadness and yes, fear, as I look forward to my future working in politics.
My fear isn't so much another deranged person with obvious mental health issues and no coherent ideology shooting up my next campaign office - that risk has always been around somewhere in the back of our minds.
My real fear is that the next time a shooting happens it will be after the shooter goes to a polticial rally (underwritten by a major corporate entity) followed by an evening of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly interviewing Steve King and Michele Bachmann telling them that the Illegal Usurper is sending people out to collect their guns and put them into camps (we'll tell you how right after this message from a major auto company), who then decides that he can't just stand aside any longer and watch people like me to destroy America.
I don't want the next tragedy to be sponsored by GoldLine or a brand of Macaroni & Cheese. I don't want the deaths and injuries of people I know and love - or myself for that matter - to be the result of the overheated rhetoric of someone that then gets a three book deal, with guaranteed endcaps at Barnes & Noble and a two year, $10 million contract for the 10pm time slot.
Until we have someone on the right (and it will need to be someone on the right, I believe) that galvinizes our nation into going back to shunning rather than rewarding fringe people calling for violence - a poignant Margaret Chase Smith Declaration of Concience moment or moments - I fear that it will take just such a tragedy to begin to bring us back to our senses, and away from extremism in prime time sponsored by a major pharmaceutical company.
