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.

First Time Out

~

Are you ready for the Sarah Palin show at the Tea Party convention tonight? I will watch with interest, as this is a fascinating slice of political life in America. Here we have a group of patriotic Americans that sat on their hands during the entire Bush administration, now erupting with outrage at the goings on in their government. After the Patriot Act, after the coverup and marketing of the Pat Tillman killing, after the marketing of the capture and rescue of Jessica Lynch, after VP Dick Cheney told the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, after the incompetence of the response to Katrina....shall I go on....okay, after record deficits, after record spending, after nominating Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court, after a near collapse of the economy, after a three page response by the Treasury Secretary to the near collapse of the economy....shall I go on? Okay, after Alberto Gonzalez...okay, okay I give up....Let me get to the point. After all of these failures and lies and incompetence, the Tea Party forms in April 2009 and a group of Americans decides they've had enough and want to take their government back. Where were they in 2005? 2006? 2007? 2008? Let me tell you where they were and why they stayed hidden until now.

The American people have always been a NIMBY type of society. Keep the problems on the other side of town and we'll be fine. Put the garbage dump over there, not here. As long as the train runs through the poor section of town, fine, but don't put those tracks within my earshot or there will be hell to pay. But when it comes to a MIMBY, or Minority In My Back Yard, it is a different story. In a MIMBY situation many Americans responded by selling everything and moving to the suburbs. Sadly, for others the response was to surround the new neighbor's house with pointy white hoods and torches and drive the problem out of the neighborhood.

So am I saying the The Tea Party is the equivalent of the KKK? No, I'm not. Tea Party members are smarter than that, so they would never admit to straight up racism and hatred and the obvious dismissal of their cause. But don't you find it interesting that the first time an African American moves into the "people's house," the neighbors surround it with white tea bags and threaten to "take our government back?" Or they claim that President Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, Hitler and baby killer? Why now? Why not two years ago?

So what do you make of the Tea Party?

If the Tea Party was about loss of confidence in government, budget deficits, tax policy, spending or health care it would have formed on April 15, 2007, when there was clear evidence that the economy was on a downward spiral and the government had no plan or response. Isn' t that the time to form a Tea Party and revolt against the government's inability to work effectively on behalf of the American people?

In my opinion this is an issue of race, and the inability for some Americans to accept an African American as the leader of our country. There is an African American in the neighborhood and it's time to revolt, with the excuse that somehow the government is no longer representing the people. All the other stuff is cover for a MIMBY attitude that has taken shape in the form of the Tea Party.

So the Tea Party will surround Sarah Palin tonight and worship her brand of political activism. And the pundits will question whether this is a serious political movement or a fad. My belief is we better get used to the Tea Party, and count on the MIMBY phenomenon to be active and vigorous for the next three years, at least.