The tragedy over this weekend in Arizona is horrendous, as is all loss of life. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of this senseless incident. It is unfortunate for the victims and their families that this shooting has become so politicized. It is quickly becoming the epitome of the consequences of vitriolic politics in America.
As of yet no one knows the reason for the gunman’s actions. People are quick to distance themselves, pointing out the lone, mentally disturbed individual. If it is the act of a single, incoherent, person then, we do not have to think about our responsibility in this violent act.
It is true that, as individuals, we can only take responsibility for things within our power. We can’t be held responsible for the rain or events beyond our control. That being said, there are very few people that are not influenced by society around them. We seldom act within a vacuum. It is true that Jared Loughner made the final decision to pull the trigger and he must take responsibility for that action. But we as a society, especially our leaders, take on some of the guilt. When people we respect constantly demonize and disparage groups that we don’t understand or disagree with, we not only legitimize the hate but we also become desensitized to it. It is not only acceptable, it no longer shocks us. When our leaders use violent images against the opposition they give credence to violent actions. Once it is legitimized by our leaders it lowers our inhibitions towards violence.
People forget that we live in a democracy. We may disagree with our elected official’s views but they are elected by a majority of the voters. By spouting the violent rhetoric, to imply that those opposed to us should be eliminated, is to subject the majority to the tyranny of the minority. No one tries to foster an understanding of the other, or find solutions that work for the whole. People forget that one can understand another point of view without agreeing with it. As a democracy we vote to find solutions that represent the whole, we vote to change power without bloodshed, we vote for people to represent us. When we participate in a democracy we implicitly agree to abide by the outcome.
It is a shame that the politicians who work hard to connect with the electorate, making themselves vulnerable, will be the ones most likely physically attacked. If we want our representatives to truly represent us, we can’t chase them into some insular institution. We need to create an atmosphere of open discourse, not vitriolic hyperbole.
Well said. I have no disagreement with anything you have said, but will add a couple of caveats.
Conflict resolution only works when both parties want a resolution that works well for both parties–the proverbial win-win.
When one party uses the resolution process as a tactic, to better his own position for a second or a third demand–ala Hitler at Munich, as an example, then it is doomed from the start. When resolution represents one party adjectly surrendering to the will of the other, the conflict is certainly resolved, but most people will not be happy with it.
For those who are on the other side of the issue, we should assume good will, unless proven wrong, but we must not also assume that people who benefit from the chaos, the conflict, and lack of communication between individuals are people of good will. Demagoguery and power sickness are as old as the human race.