Getting Political For a Minute

Everyone who knows me knows that I’m socially liberal and thus, no fan of Sarah Palin. I am usually among the first to roll my eyes at her latest hypocritical statement or snarky jab. I’m very supportive of her career in writing books and making reality TV if it keeps her out of politics. I believe she is far too emotionally driven and acerbic to be a good choice to represent our country effectively.

However I must disagree with the latest public outrage against Ms. Palin.

On Saturday January 8^th, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people and injuring fourteen others including the apparent target of the attack, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Within minutes of news reports of the attack, people online began referring to Sarah Palin’s “Take Back the 20” website, where a map of the United States was displayed with crosshairs over districts in which incumbent Democrat leaders had voted in favor of President Obama’s health care bill. She had encouraged the voting public to “take back” those districts by electing Republicans. Gabrielle Giffords was one of the 20 Democrats listed on Ms. Palin’s map. The website was shut down shortly after the incident, but the damage control did nothing to quell the outcry that Palin was responsible for the shooting. And so the political media circus begins. (Or rather, simply continues in another ring.)

Was Ms. Palin’s map in poor taste? In my opinion, yes, even before the incident in Arizona. Do I believe her public relations staff when they claim that the crosshairs were never meant to represent gun sights? Not in the least. Ms. Palin is notoriously pro-gun and an avid hunter, and I don’t believe for one moment that she did not realize that the crosshairs looked like gun sights. Additionally, Ms. Palin tweeted “Don’t Retreat, Instead – Reload!” in connection with that specific campaign, and referred to the map as her “bullseye list” which easily leads to the conclusion that the crosshairs were purposely created to represent gun sights.

But poor taste does not equal culpability. There is no reason to believe Ms. Palin wanted Gabrielle Giffords or any of the other Democrats on her “bullseye list” to literally be targeted and shot with real guns, and the public demand that she be held responsible for the shooting only serves to increase the partisan rhetoric that has become the status quo in this country.

There are several reasons why it is illogical to hold Sarah Palin accountable for Saturday’s attack, but the most compelling reason is the shooter himself. According to one long-time friend of Loughner’s, he has had a grudge against Ms. Giffords dating back to at least 2007, a year before Sarah Palin was a household name in the continental United States. Other friends and acquaintances paint Loughner as an intelligent but socially deficient young man bursting with paranoia, occupied with conspiracy theories, and who had a high level of distrust in the government in general. A cursory look at Loughner’s YouTube channel reveals mostly incoherent ramblings. As of right now there is no evidence to suggest that Loughner might have identified closely with Sarah Palin or her ideals, that he was motivated by her call to political action, or that he had ever even seen the map in question. There is a strong indication, however, that he was a mentally and emotionally unbalanced individual.

If we are going to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of Jared Loughner, we may as well blame music, video games, or other incidental forms of entertainment. A rational person will not be moved to commit murder by words or graphics that depict brutality or refer to the instruments of aggression. A person who is capable of planning and carrying out an act of violence such as the one Loughner perpetrated is a person who is, to some degree, already mentally unsound even in the absence of potential outside influences.

But if Sarah Palin is not even indirectly accountable for the attack in Arizona, why then was she so quick to disband the website with her “bullseye list” after the shooting?

Recall, if you will, the things that were deemed objectionable in the months following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001: the original cover art on a hip-hop CD from The Coup, Starbucks’ “Collapse Into Cool” promotion, and even the release dates of certain movies that portrayed hijackings or other acts of terrorism.

As a native of Oklahoma I remember that some country stations in the area refrained from playing certain songs in the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, namely “I Was Blown Away” by Pam Tillis and “Boom! It Was Over” by Robert Ellis Orrall. They weren’t ordered to stop playing them; they simply felt that, out of respect for the victims and their families, these songs were best left off play lists for a while.

It is apparent that Sarah Palin and her advisors, in a manner similar to the above referenced incidents, recognized that the crosshairs map would be considered exceedingly insensitive in the aftermath of the shooting. The removal of the website and offending graphic was not an admission of guilt.

In closing, I would like to make a plea to my readers, whether right, left, centrist, or otherwise:

I believe that there are ways to make valid points without being disrespectful or hateful to those with dissenting opinions. I not only believe this, but I also try to apply it. Being that I am only human, I admittedly sometimes fail at this task. But the furious rhetoric that is so common today is reaching frightening new heights. If we don’t work together to calm the agitated political climate, it will only be a matter of time before “Divided we fall” becomes the eulogy of this country.