Rhetoric, Violence and Blame

The scene in Tucson on Saturday (from thedailybeast.com)

As America mourns the tragedy that took place this weekend, leaving six dead and fourteen injured, some politicians continue to point fingers in the quest to answer the looming question: Why?

Has our political discourse become an endless game of denigrating those who think differently from ourselves?

Many have suggested that the current lack of civil dialogue and atmosphere of vitrolic criticism and intolerance are culprits in this recent act of violence. Regarding this offensive and infectious discourse, Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in an NPR article, “That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.” He added that his own state had become “The Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

The day before Gabrielle Giffords’ community outreach event and tragic attack, the Congresswoman wrote to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson about working together to “promote centrism and moderation … tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.” This has been the call of National Endowment of the Humanities Chairman, Jim Leach who we honored with a Common Ground Award in November for his efforts to infuse public discourse with a renewed sense of civility. Addressing the State Humanities Councils he said:

It is impossible for a thinking citizen not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics. Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify—or cloud—thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts.

In an address to the National Press Club, Leach said:

Citizenship is hard. It takes a willingness to listen, watch, read, and think in ways that allow the imagination to put one person in the shoes of another.

True listening, of the kind Leach espouses is more than hearing. And it is more than listening only to dispute. It is listening to understand, even if we disagree. The most black and white explanation is rarely the one that allows for natural complexities of human motivation. The seemingly fragile mental state of the 22-year old alleged gunman has emerged quickly as has the relationship between rhetoric and violent action. In light of this, it seems appropriate not to point blame but to tone down the rhetoric and try to listen so that we can attempt to understand how and why this happened and also how to better prevent it in the future. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that not all motivations are political.

Why do you think there is a need to look beyond the perpetrator of the crime in assigning blame?