Reactions to Tucson – The Inevitable Political Aftermath

The tragedy in Tucson, Arizona this January led to some interesting reactions and the usual cascade of news coverage. What I find interesting is how different these reactions were. Fellow Blogger Conform, Consume, Obey first got me thinking of this issue when he blogged two very contrasting videos from Obama and Palin.

Gabrielle Giffords

I had a look at the Guardian’s website and saw lots of articles covering the event. However, I immediately noticed a huge difference when I deigned to look at the Daily Mail. There are 2 articles on the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was Gwyneth Paltrow’s second cousin... (a point that the Guardian wisely didn’t consider relevant enough to write an article about) I mean seriously, overlooking the main issue just a bit! Just glancing at the headlines you can see the drama the Mail writers thrive on:

Police find photos of Arizona gunman, bizarrely posing with his firearm while wearing a red G-string, which were developed the morning of massacre
Gunman linked to white extremists: Loner charged after shooting top politician in the head and killing six

Compared with the more sober and respectful headlines of the Guardian:

Jared Loughner pleads not guilty to Arizona shootings
Gabrielle Giffords speaks one month after Arizona shooting.

Jared Loughner

With a story like this, the media always attempt to explain the horrific act by stereotyping the killer – deciding that he was obviously disturbed because he listens to rock music etc. The Pursuit of HappYness considers politics to be the most important factor in this tragedy, saying:

“It cannot really be disputed that [Loughner] was influenced in some way by Palin's ridiculous and hate inducing political campaign against the Democrats” 

and I too can see that the constant propaganda and hate is likely to affect people who aren’t all there to begin with, whereas Muncie Politics thinks that people have no right to blame the Republicans or politics in general,

“To place the blame on strong political debate is not only wrong, implying the possibility your words will somehow be connected to a mentally ill murderer is absurd. If you are conservative, Republican or in some way connected to the Tea Party you are to blame”. 

A certain degree of this speculation is to be expected, but surely it’s not the most important part of this story? Surely the miracle of Gabrielle Giffords clinging to life after being shot in the head is what the press should be focused on?

As usual though, it seems that political issues took centre stage, as people hit out at Palin over insensitive comments and her inappropriate use of the anti-semetic phrase ‘blood libel’, to quote her speech:

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn”,

Sarah Palin

Damian Thompson says in the Telegraph (another respectable news paper) that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" raises two possibilities:

"1. She's so ignorant that she doesn't know that 'blood libel' refers to the myth that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed children.
2. She does know what it means, and blurted it out anyway."

On the other hand, some people weren’t upset by Palin’s use of the term, and supported her in saying that ‘blood libel’ has far wider usage these days.

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term”, 

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said in her defence.

Barack Obama

Meanwhile, Obama focused on offering comfort to the victims families and praying for the recovery of Giffords.

"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bond together."

The BBC described his inspiring speech as ‘a call to moral arms’, and a speech ‘shot through with compassion and introspection’. His strength and humility brought tears to many in the audience. The difference in these reactions was quite apparent, even prompting an article from the Guardian: Arizona shooting: Obama speech and Palin's statement compared, and became a subject of an earlier blog of mine: Reactions to Tucson - Democrat Vs. Republican.
Jim Geraghty asks for some perspective in National Review:

"In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow."

This being the point I really agree with.

What’s worse than Palin displaying her stupidity with a fairly offensive choice of phrase, in my opinion, is that this has become more important than the victims loss of lives. The disgusting thing about her speech is how quickly she brings it round to ‘me me me’ and POLITICS! I think Obama has the complete right attitude and reaction in this awful situation. As tempting as it is to stay on the fence with an issue like this, I think I have to side with The Pursuit of HappYness and most of the mass media in assigning some blame to Palin and her party. It seems that American politics has a way of driving people to the extreme, and it’s unsurprising when you consider the sheer amount of hate mongering that goes on.