Shots Fired

What I find most interesting is the lasting impact the Giffords shooting may very well have on the way we discuss things like health care, going forward. Almost immediately after news of the Gifford shooting broke, political hyperbole was pointed out as a likely contributing factor in the tragedy. If my own social media experience is any kind of cross-section of how this played out, it goes like this: liberals feel that conservatives and Tea Partiers in particular have been using imflammatory, hateful and even violent rhetoric when addressing political opponents themselves and opposing political viewpoints. The problem, really, is that a sane mind can appreciate political hot air for what it is, but what of an unhinged mind? Could all of this toxic background chatter be the tipping point for a mind already on the edge, and incite them to do something horrific?

We don't know, of course, and as for the shooter, one look at his YouTube videos shows that the guy was deep into a mental wilderness from which few emerge. So one can't say with certainty, "politician X said statement Y and nutcase A heard it and therefore shot politician B."

And yet.

You have probably seen this before. It's an image taken from Sarah Palin's Facebook page that is the subject of some controversy. Long story short, critics say that by putting croshairs on political opponents, as Palin does here, it encourages nutcases like Loughner to take violent action. While no small number of people have denied such a connection, it's worth noting that Palin herself has been so rattled by this that immediately after the shooting, she let her spokesperson do the talking for her, which is not her style. Her camp has tried to write off the crosshairs as not gunsights, but surveyor's marks, like what you'd find on a map. But such an explanation falters when coming from a public figure known for saying things like "don't retreat, reload," and who has referred to "putting the bulls-eye" on political opponents. This is unfortunate for Palin. She obviously didn't mean for anybody to get hurt. But perhaps she didn't think things through as much as it warranted, either.

News and speculation is running rampant over how badly this will damage Palin's political career (her reality television stint appears to be at an end already), but Palin really is just one player in a much larger trend when it comes to how we discuss politics today. Gifford's recent re-election opponent, Jesse Kelly, was find of using guns as a theme in the election, running a campaign event that involved firing fully automatic M16s, and even eventually putting the "crosshairs" on Giffords himself.

I can appreciate the unease some have with connecting these kinds of posters to the Giffords shooting. After all, it's not like Palin contacted the Praetorian guard and put a hit out on the Emperor. But what is at issue here, I suppose, is a) has political discourse in this country gotten so overheated that it is actually starting to pose a risk to lawmakers by providing enough background noise for the criminally insane to take cues from and b) is such talk irresponsible to the point of calling for some kind of accountability, if only just an agreement that everybody ought to take it down a notch?

If it is insensitive to discuss such matters while Congresswoman Giffords still fights to live, and while 18 others are dead or wounded, please forgive me. But already at least one legislator is pushing to ban this kind of political discourse outright for fear of what it might mean for lawmakers' safety. (Palin's map is referenced directly as something worth banning.) As a person whose career has been made possible by the First Amendment, I find a ban on political hatemongering troublesome. Indeed, we agree that to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. And personally, I find the level of animosity in political sloganeering lately, particularly from the Tea Party, to be extremely distasteful. But to outlaw it altogether? Wouldn't that be treating a symptom rather than the disease? Surely, the real solution here is for everybody to re-examine how we discuss politics in this country, for there is much to discuss, with huge stakes at hand, and excellent arguments on all sides. The problem isn't what people believe so much as their unwillingness to even listen to what the other side has to say.

In large part, this is a failing of the American public. We have grown accustomed to living off of sound bite politics and forming opinions on laws we do not bother to actually read. (To be fair, when Congress cranks out thousand-page bills, it certainly discourages oversight on the part of John Q. Public.) But we also must look to the people we are putting in Washington, who are displaying a collective lack of expertise and intellectual curiosity that is appalling.

The insurance industry certainly knows this; it has paid exorbitant sums to lobbyists to promote its views. (No surprise there; insurance trade groups are merely doing what the system asks of them).  And the word from these lobbying efforts is that the Republicans in particular (but I doubt history shows the Democrats to be much different, over the long run) are currently a very difficult bunch of people to work with. Those who are not openly corrupt seem to have little understanding of the issues they are meant to be making policy on. Those who have industry contacts rely on them too openly and too freely, with one lawmaker reporting telling an insurance industry lobbyist, "I don't know very much…and I will do as I am told." Regardless of who the lawmaker is, what party they are from, and what interest they are promoting, that is a chilling sign of subservience, bordering on politics for hire. As for the lobbyists themselves, my friends in Washington note that, as lobbyists tend to be, they are extremely aggressive and pushy to get what they want. And woe befall any politician who fails to deliver. So what is a hapless lawmaker to do, without the acumen to navigate complicated issues and with a fat campaign coffer to pay back in favors? Turn up the rhetoric. And so our well of public discourse turns toxic.

Lest you doubt me, take some time to dissect Republican campaign strategy in recent years. The Republican revolution of 1994 in particular, was based very much off the notion that any compromise with the Democrats is unacceptable. And the Democrats have responded in kind, creating a trench warfare mentalist in Washington that allows for two things: deadlock, or legislative victories that come as such a high price that the losing side feels not just disappointed, but a need to avenge the loss.

Ultimately, my Washington friends tell me, the Giffords shooting is bound to reset the tone in Washington in a big way. I remain skeptical, but at the same time, hopeful. I have already fretted once about the state of political discourse in this blog, and I bring all of this up once more because with health care and financial services reform implementation to dominate 2011, the life and health insurance industry has a huge amount at stake. There are things that need defending (the role of health agents, for one), and things that need redefining (medical loss ratios, anyone?). And frankly, none of this stuff will ever be resolved in a truly satisfactory manner if it's discussed by both sides shouting at each other.

Personally, I don't think that toxic discourse really had anything to do with the Giffords shooting. But it is telling that so many were able to make that conclusion so quickly. That is the real barometer of how things are; and if this many folks feel this strongly about it, then something is out of whack.

At this point, let us all unite in praying for the speedy recovery of Congresswoman Giffords and the other shooting victims. Let us unite in support of the families who lost their loved ones in this heinous attack. Let us praise the heroism of the people on the scene whose swift action saved lives and apprehended the gunman. And most of all, let us work together to let our shock and grief construct something positive from all of this. Our body politic is far too strong for a single insane gunman to overthrow it. And even though the pain of the Giffords shooting is still very raw, the fact remains that when it is appropriate for us to begin discussing our political contests in earnest once more, let us do it with more intelligence, empathy and respect for each other. The decisions we render deserve it. And the innocents who suffered and died this weekend deserve it more than anyone.