A couple of nights after the shooting in Arizona, I prayed with real concern for the state of America. The politicization of the shooting was extraordinary. And as I thought about it even more that night, I became, for the first time, disgusted with American politics.
The following are some thoughts on what has transpired in the past couple of days. Moreover, they are a response to those who started the politicization of this tragedy — namely, Keith. Olbermann and Paul Krugman. As they started this, I will attempt to finish it.
Defining “hate speech”
On Wednesday, USA Today posted a picture of a woman with a sign that read “Hate speech = Murder.” Amid all of the calls blaming “hate speech” for the shooting, I wondered: What do they mean by hate speech?
From what I can gather, hate speech is anything conservative in opinion. Those who view homosexuality as wrong are “homophobic;” those who oppose abortion “hate women;” those who see extremist Islam (note that I made sure to add the adjective “extremist”) as a national threat are seen as “Islamophobic;” and those who want to secure the border and oppose affirmative action are seen as “racists.”
The logical conclusion, then, is that anything liberal in opinion is “loving.” American liberalism is “accepting of all, with a live-and-let-live mentality.”
Yet despite their claim to tolerance, liberals don’t tolerate diversity in political ideas. What’s more, their descriptions of hate speech are themselves hateful. As for their “live-and-let-live-mentality,” I point to millions of dead babies and the shipments of tons of condoms as “humanitarian aid” to Africa.
Why is it that liberals are quick to seize upon conservative rhetoric yet slow to condemn rap music, which, by all accounts, glorifies gangs, drugs, guns, and misogyny? At least be fair in your distribution of criticism, especially when thousands of black youths are born out of wedlock and die as a result of gang and drug violence.
And where were liberals when a book came out about a fictional assassination of President Bush? Or when abortion supporters wished Barbara Bush had aborted George W. Bush? Or when tons of vitriol (besides the mockery of him as an idiot) was spouted at President Bush?
Where is the “love” when liberals describe conservative America as “flyover country;” when they see conservatives as uneducated hicks who cling to their guns and their Bibles; when they see colored conservatives as anomalies, traitors, and “Uncle Toms;” and when they win Emmys by making fun of people?
The “angry American”
Since the shooting, conservatives have been depicted as being “the angry members of American society.” Certainly the town hall meetings contributed to this depiction. However, Glenn Beck’s August rally was hardly a show of “angry Americans.”
Beck himself has been decried as a bomb-thrower, yet in his only reference to Rep. Giffords prior to the shooting, he actually praised her for her non-liberal stance on border security.
A great deal is made about the angry “anti-government” conservative, but angry “anti-capitalist” liberals in the news are glossed over, even expected, when it comes to such things as WTO meetings.
Liberal pundits immediately blamed the gun-toting, anti-government demagoguery of the right for the shooting. They also viewed the shooting of a Democrat from an “us-versus-them” perspective.
However, Giffords is not your typical Democrat. She owns a Glock, was portrayed holding a gun during her campaign, and was concerned about the border. Giffords also did not vote for Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, as a Daily Kos blogger infamously reported.
Moreover, virtually every liberal pundit glosses over the fact that a Republican judge was killed in the shooting. (Though the true target was Giffords.)
As for the shooter, he was immediately portrayed as a subscriber to all things conservative, yet, as many conservative websites have documented, the shooter was by no means conservative, let alone political.
Contrast liberals’ reaction to the Giffords shooting with their cautious reaction to the Fort Hood shooting. All the facts pointed to a Muslim extremist, yet most media outlets chose to describe Hassan as psychotic, having suffered from “post-traumatic stress disorder” — despite the fact that he had yet to be deployed.
Politicization of a tragedy
The lack of caution and the immediate finger-pointing precipitated the politicization of a non-political tragedy. It is farcical that this “left-offense, right-defense” show is even occurring in the first place.
We have Olbermann and Krugman to blame for that, as they pulled Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin into the tragedy. The latter, of course, had the right to defend themselves. And when one of them, Palin, did, she was criticized by CBS’s political pundits for “inserting herself into a national tragedy.” Hello? She was pulled in not by her own choice. On CNN, Paul Begala criticized Palin for being narcissistic. Of course she was being so — she was defending herself from unfair attacks. When you defend yourself, you naturally talk about yourself.
Religion in the tragedy
The most important observation, though, is that religion, naturally and thankfully, has found its way into this tragedy. Immediately after the tragedy, people began to pray. This, of course, is anathema to the atheistic left.
In times of comfort, liberals are quick to dismiss religion, yet in times of tragedy, it is to religion that people flock. Only a fool would continue to dismiss religion in times like these.
The victims were people of faith: Giffords, Jewish; Judge Roll and the young girl, Catholic, with Judge Roll being a devout Catholic who went to Mass daily.
Prescriptions for the illness
Many liberals have prescribed censorship, or self-censorship, as the best way to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future. I, too, prescribe censorship, but of a different kind: The elimination of comments sections on websites.
As many know, the most vile and childish statements are usually found in the comments sections of websites (especially news sites). Getting rid of comments sections would be a surefire way to contain and prevent vitriol.
In closing
The accusations made by liberal pundits immediately after the tragedy were some of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. Unfortunately, in answering the attacks, I have gotten myself dirty in the filth that is politics.
Undoubtedly, many have done a much better job of answering the accusations — I only offer my thoughts as a regular American.
In closing, let us remember the true victims of this tragedy — not conservatism, not Palin, not American politics, but rather, the people who were shot, both wounded and killed. It is disgusting that mudslinging overshadowed the deaths of six people. Fortunately, things seem to be starting to calm down a bit.
Let us keep the six victims in our prayers. Amen.
Brian Nafarrete entered Georgetown University as a Democratic liberal atheist, but graduated as a conservative in May of 2009. He attempts to be a devout Catholic.