Societal violence is not caused by speech; violently tinged speech is a reflection of societal conditions that create unrest and violent urges among the citizenry.  That is not to say that there are no individuals who are inherently more inclined toward violence; such individuals definitely exist among us.  I encounter them daily.  That is also not to say that there are not those among us who attempt to exploit just such societal conditions.  Those individuals are on display daily, perhaps more, now, than at any other time in human history.

Public displays inciting violence will only resonate with people who are susceptible, as a result of anger from feeling threatened, oppressed, abused, or abandoned; conditions that such incitements are intended to exploit.  Depending on circumstances, in some people, such emotions are warranted; in others they are not.  All other things being equal, most people, given the choice, will avoid violence if possible.  

It is a well-known and undeniable tactic among politicians to set up just such societal conditions, to influence factions resulting from divisions created by such societal conditions against each other, and then to align with one side or another politically. 

If there is one truly distinguishing characteristic that separates the two opposing factions of Progressives and Conservatives, it is that Conservatives historically resist change and adhere to the politics of fear, ignorance, and anger.  Historically, it has been Conservatives that seek to create just such conditions, thereby, to manipulate those who feel that anger to direct it at political opponents; virtually all of their policy agendas clearly reveal their exclusionary and divisive worldviews.  Excluding military coups, this has historically been the single most successful political strategy for societal control; divide and conquer. 

There are other forces at work within some individuals, however, that are not understandable, nor relevant in these terms.  To confront those forces in conventional terms creates confusion about the real problem and its cause.  Mental illness is a truly horrible torment for those who must endure it; for those who do not, it is simply beyond anything remotely resembling understanding.  Unfortunately for all involved, the two divergent comprehensions of the world sometimes can cross over and create a confused and destructive societal condition in an already volatile environment.  The recent assassination event in Tucson, Arizona is an example of just such a crossover of perceptions.  And the media spin presented by the two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, is an example of the political exploitation of which I speak. 

The assassin in the Tucson event was Jared Loughner.  Mr. Loughner is mentally ill and his self expressions reveal a perspective of the world that is beyond the reach of any of the political spin presented in the media.  The warning signs of his illness were clear, yet they were ignored for reasons based in various societal values.  Loughner’s views are being asserted with no foundation by those on the Left and by those on the Right.  The Left says his actions are the result of speech from the Right while the Right is claiming his views are more aligned with the Left, yet nobody can truly understand what his views are.  And in the process of misrepresenting Loughner’s views, the reality of the underlying issue his case presents is lost.  An excellent article that discusses that reality can be found here. 

My intention here is only to say that neither the Right nor the Left should be exploiting Jared Loughner’s mental illness for political gain.  The discussion regarding Jared Loughner, his delusions, and his bizarre behavior and destructive actions should only involve ideas of what can be done on a societal level to reduce the likelihood of such calamity.  The discussion must focus on individuals such as Loughner, not on restricting the rhetoric that reached hundreds of thousands of others who did not engage in the same actions as Loughner.  In the case of an individual like Loughner, nobody can tell with any certainty exactly what will set them off.  In many cases, religious rhetoric sets them off; there is a high degree of religious ideation among schizophrenics, yet we do not hear exclamations about restricting religion. 

Blaming Loughner’s actions on political rhetoric seems to me almost insane since Loughner is insane to begin with.  But beyond that, why are we not focused more closely on those among us whom we consider sane and rational but whose rhetoric sends our society in the directions of destructive behaviors based in the greed and self-interest of their own personal gain?  Here are only a very few such directions: 

ü       Unnecessary wars;

ü       Environmental pollution that poisons us, our progeny, and virtually every other species on the planet, as well as the planet itself simply to increase corporate profits;

ü       Denying citizens the same quality healthcare that they possess at the expense of those same citizens;

ü       Ignoring the financial ruin of average citizens caused by Wall Street corruption while bailing out the Wall Street banksters that caused that ruin and are now repossessing many of those same citizens’ homes.  

Some of those politicians, on both the Left and the Right, that direct us in those destructive directions are also some of those who are stepping forward to politically exploit Loughner’s mental illness rather than presenting possible solutions to the problem of reducing the likelihood that such events will occur again.  That problem is complicated and not reducible to one-line bumper-sticker slogans, so don’t expect any real focus on solutions for the problem.  It is just easier and more beneficial to engage in media spin for political gain.