Here is the post I made to someone else's post regarding the sanity of the shooter and a comparison of the right's political rhetoric.
"I have been very disturbed to see this shooter labeled as crazy, and the acts he undertook as unimaginable. Watch Rachel Maddow's comment about the shootings, she goes through a list of mass murders in this country from the past 18 years, and there are a lot of them. This is not inconceivable, political assassinations happen all the time.
My problem with the crazy label, is that is allows for a space where the citizens of the U.S. don't have to be reflective about what has led us here as a citizenry, and white washes the context of the killings and the political environment that is alive in this country. 86 people a day are killed by handguns in this country, THAT is crazy, the fact that we pay attention to just one of those shootings every few months or years... THAT is crazy! The idea that a man felt so disenfranchised by his system of governance that he chose violence over democratic discourse, that's not crazy. that's history."
Now this post was a bit less academically rigorous then I would have preferred for my first public foray into this debate, but it was facebook so the ranty tone seemed to fit the venue.
To follow up on this thought I feel that I should first state for the record, that I do not condone the actions of the shooter. I do however empathize with the feelings of disenfranchisement with our government that so many on both the "left" and the "right" have expressed. I do however argue with how that disenfranchisement plays out in public discourse. As I was ranting last night to some friends it occurred to me that the blame being placed on the polarizing political discourse in this country perhaps isn't the reason but a symptom. Literacy rates have been steadily dropping in this country for some time now, at least 5 years, but possibly 10. With this comes a distinct lack of critical thinking capacity, the ability to discern motives behind the information we receive and of course, most bluntly the manner in which people access information.Very few people read anymore in this country, %95 of United Statians do not read more than one book a year. This has a profound effect on a populace, the implications of which are largely lost on anyone other than perhaps members of the academy or the media. With this in mind I would like to posit that perhaps the polarizing discourse isn't so much the problem as the notion that the US citizenry thinks that polarized discourse is a productive and sophisticated style of speech and an acceptable form of debate. This sidesteps the free speech issue, its not about what we say and whether or not we can say it. The issue is about what we say and whether it is appropriate to the situations that we find ourselves faced with on a daily basis.
Using the First Amendment as a shield for my actions I can scream countless profanities at whomever I choose so as long as I do not directly threaten that person. Is that to say that when I am in a checkout line at the grocery store that it would be appropriate to curse at the cashier or the other people standing in line? Is that a productive use of speech? Does anyone benefit from that act? I feel that this is a tangential yet useful allegory in reference to political rhetoric in this country. hat is added to the political debate by calling Obama a socialist or Hitler? Very little if anything in my opinion. These exclamatories could have been used to generate a discussion on socialism, or the legacy of Adolf Hitler, but they weren't. They became throw away catch phrases, sound bites that were used and perceived uncritically. Individually as statements this is not necessarily a cause for concern, in the heat of the moment when tensions flare it is difficult to remain critical while expressing one's self. Additionally it would seem to be counter to the American ethos that we police all speech and rate it as acceptably critical or not. The problem as I see it is that this method of speech has become pervasive to the degree in which it has become the norm, which means that what now passes for incendiary rhetoric is appalling and borders on seditious and perhaps also qualifies as hate speech. On the flip side of the coin we have what had passed for "usual" rhetoric: partially educated, cogent statements based on at least some facts and utilized with a clear goal in mind, this too has become deviant from the norm and is now "elitist" speech, which, given the political environment has become a very class based discursive struggle.
To switch topics for a moment I would like to speak a bit more about the idea that Mr Loughton was "crazy". This is a very problematic conjecture on the part of the pundits and journalists. not just for the reasons I outlined above but also because the definition of the oft used term "crazy" is very subjective. If one approaches this definition from "the experts" opinion, that is, the APA (American Psychological Association) then one could assert that having a mental disorder would in the common parlance establish an individual as crazy. Curiously enough, approximately 1/3 of United Statians will be diagnosed with a mental disorder in their lifetimes. Meaning that roughly 100 million people in this country can be considered "crazy" yet they do not all engage in acts of violence or political assassination. These acts are comparatively rare considering the amount of people who would qualify as "crazy" or "mentally disturbed" yet the structural power relations that inform and construct norms lead many people to utilize the label of "crazy" as a scapegoat to reason out events that do not immediately make sense to them.This supposition places the viewer of an act at the center, and all relative value of an act is seen through that lens and that lens alone, meaning that if I disagree or do not understand why a person engages in a certain action I can write them off as crazy and go about my day. There is no space for reflection, no engagement with the actor, my own subjectivity trumps any other possible interpretation. This is very problematic, it asserts that my individuality trumps all others, that my opinion is all that matters to me. This is not a democratic way of thinking. A democracy thrives on multiple opinions, not just one. That is a defining point of separation between the democracy of the United States, and the British monarchy that was rebelled against. If a person wants to participate in democratic debate and speech, then one should do the homework needed to not collapse people into easily digestible labels.They should take the time to listen to a person, not just write them off and ignore their dissent.
