By Greg Sargent
I'm going to second Steve Benen's claim that this column by Harold
Meyerson is an important addition to the debate over the shooting:
The primary problem with the political discourse of the right in
today's America isn't that it incites violence per se. It's that it
implants and reinforces paranoid fears about the government and
conservatism's domestic adversaries.
Much of the culture and thinking of the American right -- the
mainstream as well as the fringe -- has descended into paranoid
suppositions about the government, the Democrats and the president.
This is not to say that the left wing doesn't have a paranoid fringe,
too. But by every available measure, it's the right where conspiracy
theories have exploded.
A fabricated specter of impending governmental totalitarianism haunts
the right's dreams.
Again, this is why mental illness professionals say that even if we
have already concluded that Jared Loughner is a nut, we should still
be asking whether the overheated political climate -- and violent,
incendiary or paranoid rhetoric in particular -- might have played
some kind of role in pushing him over the edge.
As Dr. Marvin Swartz told me yesterday, the key operative insight is
that culture can play a role in shaping the delusions of the mentally
ill -- so it's entirely appropriate to ask whether our political
culture can do the same. In other words, the chief argument from the
right -- "Loughner is a nut who is totally detached from reality, so
therefore our political climate couldn't possibly be to blame for the
shooting" -- is off point. Rather, the question, as Dr. Swartz put it,
is this: Can those who are already delusional find their delusions --
and behavior -- further shaped and influenced by overheated political
discourse and imagery?
Meyerson makes a similar point today, arguing that the likes of Glenn
Beck and Fox News are "responsible for promoting a paranoid culture
that makes America a more divided and dangerous land." In reality,
Swartz says, the connections between political culture and political
violence are poorly understood. But the point is, trying to understand
those connections is an entirely legitimate line of inquiry, and we
should be using the shooting as a jumping off point for it.
This line of questioning is entirely separate from the narrow battle
over whether Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or any particular personality
is specifically guilty of inciting this specific act of violence. You
can say No to that question while still pursuing answers to the larger
questions at play. Those who are caught up in the back and forth over
that narrow blame game -- on both sides -- are missing an opportunity
to hash out a much larger set of issues that could have untold
consequences later.
More:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/why_its_right_to_ask.html
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment