We Are a Violent Society - Get Over It?

This post is a response to Keith Olbermann's recent MSNBC commentary on the Representative Giffords shooting.  Although I usually think Olbermann is completely dead wrong, I think his remarks this time are at least worth hearing.  They are sensible at least, although charmingly naive. 

In case you don't want to bother watching the video, Olbermann declared that our political commentary is filled with far too many allusions to violence and intimidation.  Of particular note to Olbermann, and the entire liberal media, was Sarah Palin's website placing gunsight crosshairs over certain congressional districts, including Gabby Giffords's.  Olbermann then goes on to say that all media personalities must either renounce their use of such symbols and language, or be drummed out of public life.  Finally, Olbermann made the point that we must all forever renounce the use, or threat of violence to obtain political objectives. 

This is all well and good.  And in the wake of such a horrific event, it is very un-PC to disagree with anything Olbermann said.  Of course, un-PC is my specialty, so in my book now is the perfect time to disagree.

I first have to point out one specific truth that has and shouldn't be ignored.  Jared Loughner's behavior had nothing to do with media influence.  After reading some of his online postings, and reading about some of his behavior while attending college, I have zero doubt that he was far beyond caring about the Sarah Palins or the Limbaughs of the world.  He is/was truly and deeply in the grips of mental illness (need I remind anyone that I teach Abnormal Psychology?).  Jared lacked intact 'reality testing', one of the hallmarks of full-blown schizophrenia.  He was generally aggressive in public, and had been reported to the police repeatedly due to fear of violence.  And he had an obsession with government mind control.  It is a matter of coincidence that his congresswoman happened to be a moderate Democrat in a heated conservative political environment.  Had his representative been spewing right-wing rhetoric, the outcome on Saturday would have been exactly the same.  So let's stop making a random tragedy into more than it was.  It takes the emphasis unrightfully off of the victims and forces us to ponder pointless what-ifs.

Now, I do agree with Olbermann that political discourse in our country is entirely too involved with violent undertones.  Just because Loughner didn't kill due to media hyperbole doesn't mean it's a bad idea to take things down a few notches on the anger meter.  There's no downside to conversing politely.  And although Loughner's paranoid schizophrenia had nothing to do with the media, I don't discount that there are other potential gunmen out there who may in fact be influenced by political vitriol. 

Where Olbermann goes off the rails completely into liberal la-la land is when he demanded that the threat of violence forever be disassociated with the political process.  Without the slightest intention of making a value statement, Olbermann's remarks on that subject are un-American. 

I'll leave it to others to debate whether it is a good thing or not, but it is a self-evident truth in our country that the possibility of violent revolt is an ingrained feature of our history, our culture, and of course the very founding of our country.  While it's plain to see the British empire is dead and gone, most people don't realize that the American colonies were the only part of that empire that ever achieved independence through violence. 

Of course, violence is not part of all Americans' psyche.  There are a great many Americans who believe that an armed populace is an insane invitation to murder and chaos.  Within narrowly constrained boundaries, that argument is unassailable.  Regardless, there are a large number of Americans who are proud of being the only first-world citizenry on the planet that is both capable and willing to use hard power.  The idea of reserving hard power for governments and soft power for the people is a blatant violation of the principles this country was founded on.  That doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea.  It just pisses off a bunch of people who still subscribe to those values.

The natural extension of a populace with hard power is the threat of hard power.  If one cannot threaten, then hard power becomes less a tool of politics and more exclusively a tool of slaughter.  Thus, the threat of violence will always exist in the politics of an armed society. 

For a person like Olbermann to demand the abandonment of violent rhetoric in toto only serves to increase the likelihood of violence's actual use.  Those who feel marginalized and feel the need to threaten, will be more likely to act if their ability to threaten is taken from them.  Of course it is preferable to give people other means by which they can voice their concerns.  Nonetheless, it is a truism of American culture that if you push people too far, they will react with violence or the threat thereof.

Thus, any sensible approach to political discourse must acknowledge that violence is in fact an option in American politics.  That will not change - not ever.  We have to develop uniquely American ways of accepting this fact while reasonably limiting the threat it entails.  Stock statements that 'violence is evil' are ignorant of the fabric of our nation and its people.  Ole' Teddy Roosevelt knew what he was talking about when he said, "speak softly and carry a big stick."  Americans do, and likely always will carry big sticks.  To pretend otherwise means we too lack 'intact reality testing'.