First, it was Ezra Klein:
From what we know, or think we know, Jared Loughner, the suspected shooter, was mentally ill. This was not an organized act of political violence, or even a rational one. Loughner's statements were clearly insane, and though his ravings contained some political content, it is not political content that either side of the spectrum would easily recognize as their own. "I'm able to control every belief and religion by being the mind-controller" does not appear in the platforms of either party, for instance.
...and quickly, Greg Sargent followed suit:
It's crass and counterproductive to start asking whether any political parties or ideologies are to blame for the tragic and horrific shooting of Dem Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others at an event with constituents yesterday. That's especially true given that the shooter is looking more and more like a deranged loner and early chatter that he might have had an accomplice is turning out to be false.
Mind you, these are the two Liberals on the Post's staff. I shudder to think what was being said on less reputable Newsorgs (I'm talking about you, Wall Street Journal). Even Andrew Sullivan, fair-minded, but Conservative, seemed to be jumping on the Media's "He's of no Party or Ideology" bandwagon, at least for a time. These seemed to echo a meme from a lot of Reporters on Twitter (Jake Tapper and Rachel Maddow to name two) begging the rest of us to calm down and wait for the evidence.
There's something to that. We in the Liberal/Progressive community are supposed to be a lot more "Fact-based" than at least the rabid right, so we should take this advice to heart.
At the same time, we're kind of like Cops (or at least my worst stereotypes of them), in that, even when we know we know who did it, we're going to go about the task of gathering all the evidence anyway.
Well, it looks like at least some of that job has been done. We have a clearer picture of the shooter than we did the night before, and it's pretty much what we expected.
The first thing I saw was a couple of quotes Andrew pulled from Mr. Loughner's YouTube Channel:
The majority of the citizens of the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws. .... In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current goverment because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.
No! I won't play debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in God
And...
Every US Government Official Agency is illegally accepting payment not in Gold or Silver.
Wow. This sounds familiar. Where have I heard this crap before?
The language of currency points to a Libertarian/Ron Paul type (a movement that tends to blend ideologies from odd ends of the spectrum -- Free Market Anti-Federal Reserve types and Stoner end-Marijuana laws hippies). But the stuff about Mind Control and "controlling grammar"? That had another, but still wholly extreme Right-wing source:
Jared Lee Loughner’s rants about grammar and mind control track closely to the writings of a conspiracy theorist who believes that is how the government controls the populace, one leading group says – and the man tells POLITICO he agrees with some of Loughner’s statements.
The far-right activist, David Wynn Miller, said in a telephone interview that he didn’t know Loughner, but agreed with his statement in a YouTube video that “the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.”
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, first mentioned Miller during an appearance Saturday on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”
“The idea weirdly enough of controlling grammar, of somehow the government using grammar to control the people is an idea that exists on the radical right. There’s a particular person, a man named David Wynn Miller who has plugged this idea for years,” Potok said.
Miller “claims to have invented truth language,” Potok said in an interview with POLITICO. “His idea is that if you only use the correct grammar and punctuation, you can throw off the shackles of the tyrannical government.”
Potok said Loughner appeared “practically illiterate and quite mentally ill,” but his statements and the books he has cited suggest a “pretty strong anti-government, conspiracy-oriented threat.”
“It seems he is getting some of his key ideas from David Wynn Miller,” he said.
You might want to take a look at what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Miller.
Another thing that has come up in trying to play down any connection to the Tea Party is Mr. Loughner's selection of reading material. Basically, the line of thought goes, since he liked the Communist Maniefesto, he must have been from left.
Uhhh, is there a web-app that allows me to make a game show buzzer--nope?
Okay. Read on. (This was first caught by Andrew Sullivan, who slowly changed his mind about the "No Ideology" thing throughout the day):
His favorite book list is actually rather good, I must say, featuring Orwell’s Animal Farm, Huxley’sBrave New World, Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Hesse’s Siddharta (as well as Marx’ The Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s Mein Kampf). While these are all masterpieces, they have in common that they deal with the topic of reality perception being controlled by higher powers, as well as the possibility of alternate realities. Loughner in his YouTube videos writes about ‘conscience dreams’, and his MySpaceis called ‘fallen asleep’. His talk of grammar being controlled by the government calls to mind Foucault.
The inclusion of The Communist Manifesto on this list has been cited by some as proof that Loughner could not be a Tea Party activist, but since the Manifesto deals with the topic of organized revolution more than it does with imposing a state-controlled economy, I find its appearance on the list not so strange. It also seems that Loughner had came in contact with (campus) police a couple of times, so a picture more or less emerges of a troubled adolescent, who reads stuff that’s maybe a few levels too complex for him. But these are exactly the people that you shouldn’t expose to the sort of militant, violent political rhetoric that since Obama’s presidency has been employed by the Tea Party and the Republican right.
What I've presented to you here just a few pieces. This is not a complete picture. We're day two into this investigation, and I'm sure there's still an avalanche of crap yet to hit us. Still, I'm pretty much willing to say at this point his ideas came from the Right Wing camp. Though it's entirely possible that I'll have to repudiate this whole article at some point in the future...I'm betting I won't have to.
Of course the very idea that Loughner was from the right has sent the right into a frenzy. Never mind that the overwhelming negative tone of American politics primarily comes from them, never mind virtually all of the political violence that has occurred in the country over the last two years, has come from the extreme wing of their ideology.
Nope. Never mind all that...and don't you dare talk about it, either.
From Steve Benen:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was asked this morning by CNN's Candy Crowley about Sarah Palin's notorious "crosshairs" graphic, and he seemed rather annoyed about the question. Alexander concluded, "I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it."
Well, tough crap, Senator. We're talking about it.
Then, Rand Paul struck:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday today that the mass shootings in Arizona yesterday are "unrelated" to Arizona's gun laws: "The weapons don't kill people, it's the individual that kills people."
And how could I make a list of tone deaf, dishonest Right-wing rhetoric without listing Justin Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, sent out an Email with this little ditty:
In a moment, a leftist lunatic destroyed a half a dozen lives.
Right. He blamed us.
Project much there, Justin?
If there is one bit of sunshine to come out of this mess (and it is just a bit, given how much we have all lost and how much others have suffered), it is that people are noticing. They've had enough of the rhetoric and want it to stop...now:
“There is a need for some reflection here - what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”
The Senator who said that was a Republican. The problem is that he or she refused to identify themselves on the record "in order to freely discuss the tragedy", which is horrifying in itself.
Even the Tea Party showed that it hadn't completely lost their minds. Allison Miller of the Pima County Tea Party Patriots (where the shooting occured) said:
"There are people in society that are just going to do these things, unfortunately. And then, what happens is, you know, in this case, people trying to use it to create further divisions between the right and the left. I think it's irresponsible, in my opinion...what it does is polarize people even further."
At the same time, she was still defensive :
"I did feel, you know, very like 'why are they jumping to this conclusion before they even knew the person's name?' They're jumping to this conclusion that it has to do with the hotly contested Congressional race," she said. "Well, apparently, from what I've seen so far...it's looking like that's not the case."
I guess it's too much to ask for Allison to read any part of this blog, right?
George Packer (the Liberal who blew his call on the Iraq War) was in a far more reflective mood:
For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn't a big-government liberal—he's a socialist who wants to impose tyranny. He's also, according to a minority of Republicans, including elected officials, an impostor. Even the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the 112th Congress was conceived as an assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Administration and Congress.
This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.)
Andrew Sullivan (on same posting, in response):
The level of animus toward the new president and anyone supporting him reached preposterous proportions at the beginning of this presidency; the gracelessness from the Congressional leadership on down, from "You lie!" to "death panels" and "palling around with terrorists" ... this is a real problem in a country with its fair share of disturbed individuals and much more than its fair share of guns.
The Palin forces, who have fomented this dynamic more viciously and recklessly than any other group, are reacting today with incandescent rage that they could even be mentioned in the same breath as this act of political terrorism. That's called denial. When you put a politician in literal cross-hairs, when you call her a target, when you celebrate how many targets you have hit, when you go on national television and shoot guns, when you use the language of "lock and load" to describe disagreements over healthcare provision ... you are part of the problem.
John Weaver, a longtime Republican operative, agreed:
"Actions can’t be placed on anyone’s doorstep. But if Governor Palin doesn’t want to be criticized then she should continue her commentary but dial back the anger."
Amen.
One of the things I keep saying about President Obama is that he gets blamed for more stuff he actually didn’t do. It started with the Reverend Wright case, and how the eventual President was somehow blamed for statements that were made when he wasn’t there. It cast in my mind the importance of trying to nail down for anyone, what was actually done, and said.
Along those lines there is an obvious statement that needs to be said flat out for the argument to continue:
Being Right winged does not mean mentally unstable.
I know, revolutionary thought, right? But its something that we on he left have started to take for granted, albeit a lighthearted way. We say it all the time, “Oh, that person must be crazy for saying those things” or “they’re nuts” or even a simple “they’re stupid”.
All that is lighthearted banter. We can say those things a thousand times and still not mean them, because we don’t. We just disagree, and are doing so in strong terms.
All the more reason to be mindful of what actual crazy looks like, and Loughner falls into that category.
He may have gotten his ideas from the extreme right, but reading what we would call bad ideas did not make him crazy. That was something else, and that crazy made him pull the trigger.
I leave this post convinced that a majority of the political philosophy Mr. Loughner absorbed was from the extreme American right.
…but in Loughner's case, crazy takes precedence.
