I really, in thinking about what I should write about on this blog, didnt want to "talk politics" or do topical news crap but somehow I cant help but write about this shooting last week in tuscon. It was, just like with the whole wikileaks thing, more interesting to see peoples reaction to the event than to see the actual event itself. I had been sitting on the internet that day (big surprise!) when the story broke and immediately hit cnn.com to see what they where saying. In the comments sections on the story, both on cnn and on other websites and messages boards around the internet, I was amazed by how quickly people started to jump to conclusions as to who or what had caused this shooting. The political "bias" of every commenter was evident in each post. One group saying this was a consequence of sarah palin and the tea parties "rhetoric of violence". Others saying the shooter could not of been right wing, he had to be a left wing shooter trying to assassinate the congresswomen because she was not left wing enough for him. Even more ridiculous I saw discussion that this was an assassination carried out by mexican drug cartels in retribution for arizonas drug polices (?who the fuck come up with this shit?).
Almost no where did anyone state that this was probably just a lone crazed individual, a paranoid schizophrenic most likely, whos untreated and unmedicated mind had finally "snapped". Low and behold a few hours after the shooting the suspects name was released and in a short while myself and many others had found the shooters myspace and youtube videos, full of insane rambling about mind control and currency and whatever other nonsense this poor man was obsessed with. As an aside (as if this entire blog wasnt an aside) the question that he asked gabrielle giffords in 2007, "How do you know words mean anything?" is quite interesting. Someone should mail him a copy of semiotics for beginners. Anyway, I have no faith in pop psychology but this violent act was obviously not the result of political rhetoric alone. This was, and is I believe, really an issue of mental health, not politics or violent video games or whatever other nonsense.
None the less the issue quickly went, as we have all seen, from one of murder and violence to one of politics and symbolism. The event was politicized almost immediately after it happened. Quite gross really. It strikes me that this is one of those perfect baudrillardesque moments. The event is completely ignored in every facet. The connotation and implication of the event fascinates us more than the event even while we fully acknowledge that the connotations and implications have nothing to do with the thing itself. A complete "non-event". ""Who was hurt?" "I was! I was hurt by the inflammatory rhetoric of such-and-such party last year! Lets talk about that!". A completely cynical and gross reaction.
Again, I dont know how else to say this, this is a metal health issue. Some people, through no fault of their own, are afflicted with various disorders and behave in completely irrational and anti-social ways. I couldnt help but notice that on the same day this was going on Jerry Browns budget here in california called for slashing funding for mental health services. Were the attitudes, institutionally and socially, more proactive in identifying and treating these conditions we might have less of these events. Less columbines, less virginia techs, and so on and so on. This type of violence has become disturbingly common. To the point that statical analysis can almost predict them to the day. I am very pro gun, but I must say, this toxic combination of access to firearms, backward and ignorant attitudes to mental health, and a complete lack of engagement by mental health services, combine in an inevitable conflagration of tragedy. To rehash james carvilles phrase, "its biology stupid!" not politics that motivated this event.
In previous decades it may of been possible to leave the treatment and supervision of these individuals up to their families, their churches, the communities in which they lived. Now however such ties are increasingly fractured or even non-existent. In such a state it stands to social institutions to fill the roll of the "social". Without this kind of supervision such acts will only become even more common. In this case, and as with many others, the individuals involved in this violence came into contact with various "authorities". Their erratic behavior was noticed but did not "rise to the level" that it required intervention. It was "nobodys" problem. In this case the shooter was even expelled from the community college he was attending and was told (both he and his parents) that he could not return without a psychological evaluation. His behavior was such that teachers and students at the college feared he may commit a school shooting. Who was responsible for monitoring jareds state of mind? Was it his parents? The community college? The police? His friends? Jarred himself? I am reminded of the line by jean baudrillard "It is from the death of the social that socialism will emerge". If social interaction is becoming more and more remote, more and more "virtual" rather than "real", doesnt this leave only "social institutions" to fill the gap that "asocial" behavior has left? I dont even like socialism myself but I cant really, because of this uncomfortableness with socialism, be led to say that schizophrenics should be left to deal with their mental problems on their own. This seems a disservice to both the people suffering and society at large. This whole issue is such a messy and ugly business. No good answers.
Issues of culpability not withstanding, the conversation this shooting has sparked is interesting. We seem to have seen a complete admission by talking heads, political figures, radio hosts and otherwise, that yes, our political rhetoric is uncivilized and sometimes even violent. David brooks, on charlie rose earlier this week, made a fascinating observation. He concluded that as social and cultural bonds have been dissolving in america in the last few decades, as race and even religion no longer holds people together, that politics has come to take that place. That politics has become our "race", our "religion". That our politics has come to define "our culture". The subsequent volatilization of political rhetoric has thus become like a kind of "racism". In which there is no room for dialog or compromise, the other side is just wrong through and through to the core of their being and nothing can be done about it. Brooks observation is to me, piercingly accurate. I have still only just started thinking of the implications of it.
It is only in our environment of political correctness and pluralism that this "racism" be reborn, sanitized of its barbaric associations with "mere" race. United again with the true "races" of men, ideologies. Everywhere in political discourse we see today deterrence. This amazes me. No one speaks, as it were "positively", they speak from a place of defensiveness. Always aware that the enemies lie just outside the gate(ed community?) ready to attack. Always statements are made to deter the rhetoric of the opponent. A kind of asymmetric warfare of political "dialog". To slightly mangle a quote: "guerrilla armies never win wars but their enemies always loose them." This to me is the perfect commentary on our politics. Parties do not attempt to win, they only attempt to make sure the opposing side loses. You are not elevated by your rhetoric but the enemy is lowered, this passes for "dialog". Everywhere we see this deterrence and yet this is not a rhetorical scientific deterrence. Not a matter of "showing your work" so that teacher knows you know what he or she knows. No, instead this is a kind of subterfuge. Code language makes up our dialog specifically to deter the attack of imaginary political opponents. We double check our language not because we dont actually believe the things we say but because we dont want to get attacked for airing our true beliefs. Moreover our own attacks on our "enemies" are made in such a way as to make our own position unassailable. We attack indirectly with connotations and inversions of rhetoric, with implication and symbolic language. The events of this past week become a mine field. A roadside bomb. This is really a very sophisticated type of warfare. Even someone as seemingly politically inept as sarah palin not only engages in it but has a mastery of it (or is she just more lucky than good?).
How do we deescalate this violence? How do we disentangle from this conflict? Paradoxically, and truly this is postmodernism at is finest, paradoxically it may be actual violence that begins the deescalation of rhetorical violence. There is now discussion that republicans and democrats will sit together during the state of the union address. What a far cry from "YOU LIE" and so on during the past years. The fact that we are even having a discussion about how to have the discussion is a good sign I think. Further more it seems to me, over the last few years, that these calls for civility have been growing. Perhaps not equally on all side but it has been a trend none the less. It may seem hard for us to envision an american political environment that is not fractious and rude but it was also very hard to imagine the cold war ending in anything but apocalyptic violence. Perhaps we will not continue to see the balkanization that has been the rule these past years. Perhaps the tide of "civilized" voices will become the majority. The observation has been made I think correctly that the uncivilized rhetoric is probably related in part to recent "unilateral" election cycles. With one party holding all the power what can the other do but engage in guerrilla war? Perhaps this uncivilized and asymmetric political rhetoric is a gauge we can use to measure how important it is to not have unilateral power structures within government. Im starting to sound remarkably optimistic about this whole thing. What a difference a week can make.
