Tea Party Rhetoric and the Arizona Shooting
By Randall Holcombe • Monday January 10, 2011 11:20 AM PDT • 19 Comments
In the aftermath of the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in which at least a dozen people were shot and at least six have died, some commentators have placed at least some of the blame on what they see as extreme Tea Party rhetoric that has created political divisiveness. Pima County, Ariz. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said people like the gunman Jared Lee Loughner “are especially susceptible to vitriol.”
(I add, parenthetically, that news accounts are calling Loughner a “suspect” in the shooting, when after the shooting people took the gun away from him and held him for the police. What kind of Orwellian use of language calls him the suspect, rather than the gunman?)
I’m not a Tea Partier, and I don’t listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly (not that I have anything against them), but as far as I know, Sarah Palin, Fox News, and Tea Partiers have not called for any kind of violence, let alone gunning down people with whom they disagree.
What would be the point of gunning down elected officials, when they would just be replaced with others who have similar political views?
The point of the Tea Party, and others who engage in “the ‘vitriol’ that has infected political discourse,” has been to elect people who hold political views more in line with the words of the Constitution of the United States, to replace office holders who have been creating a government that intrudes even more into people’s personal and economic lives.
That shooting was a tragedy, to be sure, and I have yet to see anyone paint it any other way. But I don’t see it as a signal that people who disagree with the direction our elected officials are taking our government should tone down their rhetoric.
In the past decade the federal government’s share of GDP has gone from 18.4% to 25%, and its regulatory intrusion in our lives has increased in similar fashion. Those who believe that the moral and economic strength of this country rests on the productivity of the private sector of the economy should speak out against this massive expansion of government that threatens our prosperity and our way of life.
That Tea Party rhetoric is about using the electoral process to replace elected officials who favor big government with those who believe in smaller government and individual freedom. I’m very uneasy with critics who argue that the Arizona shootings imply anything about toning down that rhetoric. Looking at what has happened to our government in the past decade — and especially in the past two years — I’d argue that we need more of that rhetoric, not less.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Constitution, Culture, Liberty, Media, Personal Liberty, Politics, The State 
There is a reason why the left is so desperate to blame this shooting on the Tea Party — and it’s the same reason they are desperate to paint the Tea Party as racist. The reason is that the left is intellectually bankrupt, and has no actual, valid arguments to offer in support of its two core ideas: socialism and pacifism. Events of the 20th century exposed both as utter failures.
Socialism did not bring prosperity to the masses as the left claimed it would — rather, in places where it was practiced fully and consistently, it brought mass death by starvation to the populations. See, for instance, the histories of the U.S.S.R., communist China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Likewise, pacifism did not bring about world peace as was promised by the left — instead, it invited the horrific aggressions of two world wars and one “cold war” which saw the deaths of millions of innocents and the enslavement of still millions more under communism.
Thus, with their two beloved ideas so thoroughly discredited and debunked — but their irrational hatred of capitalism and freedom fully intact — the left is reduced to lame fallacies like ad hominem and smears. It’s pathetic and quite revealing.
Michael Smith | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
First of all, none of the tea party gave a rats ass about the debt before Obama took over. They happily watched Reagan, Bush and Bush run up the nation’s credit cards, even during boom times, and said nothing. The second Obama took power during the worst economy in generations, and they freak out. So give me a break.
As for tea party rhetoric, you clearly don’t spend much time on the internet. You don’t have to go far to read about people talking about “second amendment solutions”, or whipping out their guns, and that’s the freaking leadership.
And then there is all of the rightwing extremism we’ve seen. So far, there have been numerous shootings and near misses from extremists, not to mention the worst terrorism incident in your country’s history before 9/11.
So really... let’s not play games here. Rightwingers are freaking out and they need to tone it down. That’s all anybody is saying.
John | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
By such logic the American Revolution was a terrible crime committed by the Americans. They should have waited it out and became a Republic peacefully (while remaining part of the Commonwealth thus allowing Americans to clean up at the Commonwealth Games) in the similar vein that the other Western nations ended slavery without the need for violence.
Gil | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
John, The reaction by the “Left” regarding the Arizona shootings reflects a fundamental problem—”progressivism” is incoherent and authoritarian:
1. The accused assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, was no Tea Partier, no Republican and no conservative or libertarian. Nowhere on the Tucson Tea Party lists can Loughner’s name be found. Instead, he is clearly a lost and mentally deranged soul—an incoherent, anti-religious bigot, and doper, unable to form a rational worldview. Indeed, he claims to admire Marx, Che, Chavez, Alinsky, and Hitler. As Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has now admitted, Loughner had been under investigation by the police for making death threats in the past.
2. Loughner was apparently upset with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords who was one of 19 Democrats to vote in keeping with the Tea Party against Pelosi to be re-elected as leader of the House Democrats. Giffords herself is a Blue Dog Democrat and supports Second Amendment gun rights and opposed the ban on guns in Washington, D.C. The Left has hated her: just two days before the murder on January 6th, the leftist DailyKos posted an article headlined to say: “My CongressWOMAN [Gabrielle Giffords] voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!” Although now pulled from their site, the screenshot of the article can be found here.
3. The move is now on by certain “liberal” members of Congress to criminalize dissent and self-defense by passing new legislation to restrict both the First and Second Amendments. Indeed, Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) actually wants to make it a crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as a threat against a member of Congress or a federal official. And ironically enough, it is this exact kind of thinking about controlling language that is central to Loughner’s crackpot worldview. In addition, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) wants to push for new gun controls, despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment. And, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) wants to restore the “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle talk shows so that they pass federal scrutiny: “The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech.” Noteworthy here is that Clyburn’s daughter is a FCC commissioner.
4. The Tea Party movement began in the last two years of the George W. Bush administration in opposition to Bush and was led originally by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and others. Indeed, the opposition to Bush’s TARP was led by Tea Party people, while McCain, Obama, Bush, Pelosi, and virtually the entire governing class fiercely endorsed the measure.
5. As Anthony Gregory has noted, the liberal and left-liberal view of self-defense and the Second Amendment is to disarm the citizenry and arm government officials with every conceivable weapon. “Gun control” only seems to apply to the peaceful citizenry who use firearms lawfully and defensively, while federal mandates by government leaders are backed up by SWAT teams and unconstitutional and invasive wars that kill thousands of innocent people are exalted as just A-Okay.
David Theroux | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
This very site led the fight with books, articles seminars and more against the debt going back years before Obama. Perhaps commenter John might consider the facts before making obviously false claims about tea party supporters. John’s claim that ‘right wingers’ are guilty of shootings is a lie that is beneath contempt. The schizophrenic-appearing criminal was said to be ‘very liberal’ by his friend. Of course his derangement appears to be the much bigger factor in this crime than his incoherent political views. Why is it the ‘left’ always leads with anti-’right’ spin instead of facts, even in response to senseless non-political originating tragedies?
Joe | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
Well, aside from the war and other crimes committed by several American revolutionaries (and the British, of course, as well), have a look at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who achieved independence without shooting anybody. It could have happened here, too.
Brad Bunnin | Jan 10, 2011 | Reply
This writer appears to only look at one side. What about the union official that advised his people to pray for the death of Governor Chris Christy of NJ? PRAY for the DEATH. Hello????? What is that about?
I agree with what the tea party does and I certainly didn’t like either of the Bushes. I even voted against Bush II. There are many tea partiers who feel the same way.
Pat McKim | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Thanks to John for so perfectly illustrating the point I made in my comment just above his — the invoking of ad hominem in the form of claiming the Tea Party people are hypocrites and advocates of violence is exactly the sort of thing the left is forced to offer these days in place of rational argument.
John is also attempting to re-write history. He is evading the fact that Obama got elected largely because he successfully portrayed McCain as “a continuation of Bush” and thereby capitalized on the American people’s dissatisfaction with the big-spending policies of Bush and the Republicans in Congress — the same dissatisfaction that gave the Democrats control of the Congress in 2006.
What’s more, when Obama took office, he had a 70% approval rating and very low negatives — organized opposition to Obama did not materialize until his actual agenda became apparent and the America people realized that the “change” he proposed was a massive acceleration in the growth of government spending and control over our lives.
So the whole notion that the Tea Party people were just fine with runaway government spending and regulation and then “freaked out” the moment Obama got elected is pure fiction — just typical of the sort of lie the left invents and which people like John swallow and spread.
And what John and the whole left fails to realize is that such lies are only serving to further energize the American people against Obama and the Democrats.
Michael Smith | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Michael, you won’t get any arguments from me about the left’s failed commitment to socialism. But pacifism? How did pacifism on the part of the left lead to all of the tragedies you cited? Is entering WW1 as a path to peace an example of pacifism? As far as I can tell, they have a lot of blood on their hands, at least as much as the right does.
D. Saul Weiner | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
“as far as I know, Sarah Palin, Fox News, and Tea Partiers have not called for any kind of violence, let alone gunning down people with whom they disagree.”
As far as you know? Nice cop-out. You should either do some research or not write about things you don’t understand.
Jeremy In Kansas | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Nice Article.
I would like to say this about your comment on the use of the word suspect.
It is the right thing to do, to refer to him as a suspect. We have the innocent until proven guilty idea built into our legal system for a reason, and if it’s upheld even in the worst and most obvious circumstances, hopefully it will be upheld for all, both innocent and guilty.
David, perfect reply. I would like to echo your point that it was under Dr. Paul’s movements that the tea parties started in 2007, under Bush. While many of the tea party people are simply republicans parading as angry constitutionalists, it would be unfair to say none of the tea party people were upset before hand.
Jeremy In Kansas,
Can you provide some counter evidence? If not, then you don’t have much ground to stand on for calling him out.
Jason in Florida | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Ha, the phrase, “As far as I know” is Not a cop-out, Not by a long stretch.
clark | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Interesting comments. I must admit I find many of the comments both by the mysterious “left” and by the self-proclaimed “tea partiers” to be both amusing and hypocritical. Amusing in that people really only want to believe what seems to suit them at any time, and hypocritical in the sense that both groups are doing the exact same thing. Inventing faceless groups of bogey men to blame anytime something bad happens.
It seems to me that people who were truly interested in the true meaning of the Constitution would actually be interested in the entire document, and not just the parts they tend to use to support their often times selfish claims, and second if you are going to make the Constitutional argument, then you must realize that the framers envisioned not only small government and individual rights, but also individual responsibilities.
Too often too many people jump to yell fire in the proverbial crowded theater, and then afterward claim those who critique them for it are some how misinformed or have no place to criticize them. This is symptomatic of all political extremists (left and right).
I also think that those who criticize the “Tea Party” make the vital mistake of assuming that there is such a thing as a “Tea Party”, when in fact the term covers a multitude of citizen and political groupings, many of which are simply action committee to lobby on behalf of a particular point of view, while others are truly extremists hiding under someone else’s banner.
Whether or not the murderer in Arizona was influenced by political “vitriol” will come out of the on-going investigation, but the sad truth is there are a number of people who purposefully speak to divide people, and who act irresponsibly with their 1st Amendment rights. These individuals should take heed that this isn’t the first time that an unbalanced individual may have been inspired by such verbal assaults, and it is likely not the last, until people realize that it is indeed possible to have a vigorous discussion about matters of public interest without having to sow hatred to make their point.
Frank | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
My sentiments. Good!
Guy Monahan | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
D. Saul Weiner asked:
“How did pacifism on the part of the left lead to all of the tragedies you cited?”
It wasn’t pacifism “on the part of the left” that invited WWI — it was pacifism on the part of England’s and other European country’s leaders (and I don’t know what their political alignment was) who ignored the obvious fact that Germany was planning to wage war. Rather than vigorously plan to defeat Germany, they (the English in particular) dithered around with diplomacy and negotiations. This gave the Germans reason to believe their only foe on the Western front would be France.
This was a pacifist mistake repeated on an even greater scale when Germany began re-arming in 1932. It seems that all the European governments convinced themselves that Hitler to be someone who could be dealt with by reason — by negotiation and diplomacy and appeasement. It didn’t work and the rest is history.
Pacifism was clearly not the only cause of those two wars. The lesson is simply that those wars prove that pacifism doesn’t work to prevent wars. The Hitlers of the world will not be stopped by diplomacy and negotiations — and neither will the Ahmadinejads nor the Osama bin Ladens.
The present day left’s commitment to pacifism seems to have begun in the 1960s with the emergence of the anti-war movement in response to the Vietnam war. The fact that pacifism’s tools — diplomacy, negotiations, appeasement, etc. — have a track record of virtually *zero* successes at stopping our enemies is completely evaded by today’s left.
And finally, I completely agree with you that the left has much blood on their hands. MUCH.
Michael Smith | Jan 11, 2011 | Reply
Loughner, and thousnds more, should have been committed to mental institutions years ago.
ralph | Jan 12, 2011 | Reply
First, “(I add, parenthetically, that news accounts are calling Loughner a “suspect” in the shooting, when after the shooting people took the gun away from him and held him for the police. What kind of Orwellian use of language calls him the suspect, rather than the gunman?)”
- – Innocent UNLES (not until, until implies guilt) proven guilty. – - that makes him a suspect, not a gunman. Be careful what you wish for lest you might get it.
Second, Michael Smith, what WWI history book are you citing? “Germany was planning to wage war”???, “they (the English in particular)dithered around with diplomacy and negotiations.” History of that era is too long to go into here, but none of that is true, That war took place because nearly every country in Europe – as well as did the U.S. – ignored George Washington’s sage advice “friends of all nations entangling alliances with none.” Thanks to treaties already in place, one assignation forced 70 million people into combat. Germany declared war on France on Aug 3rd, England declared war on Germany on Aug 4... doesn’t sound like they “dithered around with diplomacy and negotiations.”
joe4liberty | Jan 13, 2011 | Reply