Retreating from Responsibility

The cause of the recent Tucson shootings and attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords has been debated extensively this past week. Many have already found their explanation for the crime, convinced that the polarized political climate and hate speech from various politicians contributed to the killer’s actions. Others believe it to be the lone act of a crazed man, who acted on his own without influence from the raw political climate. What I found most interesting about last week’s debate, however, was the response from the two politicians many believe may have contributed to the gunman’s motives.

Last year Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin both used gun imagery and statements promoting the use of gun violence to achieve their political goals. In response to the onslaught of criticism for their hostile statements, both Angle and Palin refused to take any personal accountability for the power of their political messages. They responded that they couldn’t possibly be culpable, that the gunman was solely responsible for his actions. I find it incredulous that Palin and Angle refuse to accept any personal responsibility for their political statements and symbols, especially since they so vividly suggested the use of guns to achieve their political goals.

When Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle said last March during her campaign to unseat Harry Reid “Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems,” I want her to take personal responsibility for her statement. A Second Amendment remedy means that if you don’t like the outcome of the Nevada senate vote, someone should take up arms and kill Senator Harry Reid. What other interpretation is there? So why is Angle surprised when someone grabs a Glock pistol with a 31-bullet clip and attempts to kill a congresswoman? After all, the Tucson killer was simply following her instructions to use a Second Amendment remedy to settle a political difference.

And when Sarah Palin placed crosshair symbols on a map of several congressional districts, including the district of Congresswoman Giffords, then announced on the same day the map was published, “It’s not a time to retreat. It’s a time to re-load,” and then someone doesn’t retreat, but reloads a Glock handgun and kills innocent citizens and attempts to kill a congresswomen from one of the districts targeted by Palin, why doesn’t Palin take personal responsibility for her statement? She put a rifle’s crosshair over Congresswoman Gifford’s district and then made her now infamous re-load speech and someone took her suggestion and attempted to kill the congresswoman. Don’t retreat from your statements and crosshair map now Sarah Palin, take personal responsibility.

Palin, of course, denies that the map was anything but symbolic (please spare me the feeble attempt to call the crosshairs a “surveyors mark”). But it begs the question – what is the limit to Palin’s crosshair’s map? I suppose that since it was an innocent use of a symbol, Palin would use it again, right? So if the great-granddaughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. were running for congress, Palin would use the crosshair symbol to target her congressional seat, right? And if John F. Kennedy’s great-grandson were running for Senator in Massachusetts, certainly Palin would use the cross-hairs symbol to target his campaign. In Palin’s world it is an appropriate way to politically target a candidate, so she would surely use it to target the descendants of Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, right?

I’d like to think that even Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle would know not to use crosshairs on a map or make statements using gun imagery and violence if a King or Kennedy descendant were the candidates. So how can it be acceptable for Palin and Angle to use those same statements and symbols against Senator Harry Reid and Representative Gabriella Giffords?

I don’t believe that Palin and Angle’s political statements were directly responsible for the events in Tucson last week. But when you make statements invoking the use of violence – kill Harry Reid – or you place a gun sight crosshair over a congresswoman’s district and tell people to re-load, you can’t then deny any personal responsibility for the actions that may follow. Even if the inexplicable acts are those of a crazed gunman.