According to The Australian (a Murdoch rag) Loughner has connections with a far-right group called American Renaissance.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/arizona-shooting-suspect-may-be-linked-to-anti-semitic-group/story-fn3dxity-122598

“Hollywood remains the fantasy murder capital of the world. Loughner, only in his early twenties, will have seen tens of thousands of people wasted on celluloid and on perhaps on his own computer screen. Shooting cops is widely glorified in popular music. Both film and music are vast privately-owned for-profit industries, of course.”

Given that much of our culture comes from America, that is more or less true of people in Britain as well. Yet we have a much lower murder rate than the US. Dare I suggest the more obvious answer, that it simply has something to do with liberal (in the sense of permissive) gun laws?

@1, Politico also has that link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47308.html

The group mentioned is another that calls itself “conservative”, but is in reality another Whitey Power front.

The tiny amount of Palin and Beck’s culpability in this is from their position on control…

I believe the murder rate in the us has been decreasing for decades now. This a tragedy but is no more a reflection on American propensity to violence than the swedish prime ministers assassination years ago reflected some deep threat to Swedish stability. These horrendous things happen unfortunately and there is little to do but to bring the individuals responsible to justice.

@5, you hadn’t thought that this might have been a Byron Williams that got through?

Hmm, so why did Sarah Palin delete the picture of a map of the US with gun-sights on certain states and hitlist beneath it, as well as a tweet saying “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” ? Guilty conscience much?

If you use violent rhetoric in politics don’t be surprised when lunatics take you up on it.

What is the difference between someone taking up a gun because of Palin’s foolish campaigning – which she was criticised for at the time and did nothing about – and someone taking up a gun because of some mad mullah ranting about the Great Satan in Yemen?

This is only the beginning. I predict a lot more incidents like this before Obama leaves office & it will become increasinly difficult for the US to pretend that they aer all isolated incidents. America is sleepwalking towards fascism – see the recent request for details of 600,000 twitter users who follow wikileaks.

I tell a lie – the inflammatory tweet is still up: http://twitter.com/#!/sarahpalinusa/status/10935548053

Given that much of our culture comes from America, that is more or less true of people in Britain as well.

There’s probably also some media-studies question you could ask along the lines of ‘what percentage of TV shows spend their time setting up elaborate scenarios for which the best solution is an individual pulling out a handgun’?

it’s kind of noticeable, for example, that in early (i.e. good) series of Spooks the main characters would, once all the double-crossing and betrayal was worked through, pick up the phone and a bunch of guys in black uniforms and assault rifles would wrap up the episode. Later on, the men in black were repeatedly delayed, and the leads (despite being in an office in central London) were always the only ones who could get there in time. Cue to a few unconvincing minutes of running around brandishing shooters…

It is reasonable to describe that as an Americanisation of the show: moving from violence as a functional necessity to an attraction, a feature.

Overall, there seems to be a three-step process:

1. media shows violence, and in particular a specific pattern and style of violence, as glamorous and righteous

2. a politician, in some rhetoric, tries to tap into that energy

3. disturbed person sees Hollywood-style violence referenced in a real-world context, acts on it.

The UK has disturbed people, and it has Hollywood films and some US TV, but is, fortunately, so far, mostly missing the middle step. Maybe our politicians are a bit more sensible and moral than the current US crop. Or maybe it’s just that the underlying myth of righteous individual violence is not being pushed so heavily here, and so is less attractive for political use, a temptation more easily resisted.

Don’t forget, the founding myth of the US is that “anyone can do it” – rampant indivualism leads to societal disconnect & alienation – any population will have a % of damaged people it’s true, but it’s about how you handle that issue & don’t inflame people to commit atrocities like this one.

Assuming that Loughner is convicted, am I alone in anticipating that Republican candidates for next year’s nomination will be remorsely grilled on their willingness to pardon him?

@7: “If you use violent rhetoric in politics don’t be surprised when lunatics take you up on it.”

As this video clip convincingly demonstrates, Sarah Palin is beyond satire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjZW4z9zqqY

If you listen to Any Questions, at around 45 minutes, you will hear Ken Livingstone call for the present government of the UK to be incinerated:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x45c7

Isn’t that so typical of a right-winger like him.

@13

Yes, that’s exactly the same and in the same context as Sarah Palin’s comments in the US with an increasingly large anti-government, racist, ignorant “grassroots” movement backed by a couple of billionaires, as well as Britain having identicle gun control laws as the US. Glad you pointed it out.

As for that Roshonara Choudhry, who stabbed the MP Stephen Timms, I can’t make up my mind whether this was because (1) she is a violent redneck or (2) the febrile, violence-filled political atmosphere of the UK. I’ve no doubt that the Daily Mail played a part in inciting her. I know it was nothing to do with religion, unless she is, in fact, a fundamentalist Christian. They’re capable of almost anything.

@15

Actually, that is a good example. Someone who was clearly bonkers took fundamentalists words as gospel (sic) and acted violently on them after hearing violent rhetoric.

This article, by Sara Robinson, from June 2009, is quite helpful on the recent patterns (and increasing frequency) of political murder in the United States.

@ 16

Well, let’s hope that nobody who’s bonkers listens to Any Questions, eh?

“Hmm, so why did Sarah Palin delete the picture of a map of the US with gun-sights on certain states and hitlist beneath it, as well as a tweet saying “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” ? Guilty conscience much?”

Did Palin tell this nutter to go out and shoot people? No, she did not. That was the nutter’s decision and the nutter’s decision alone. I happen to believe in the concept of free will. The vast majority of Palin’s “fans” have not gone on some sort of gun-toting rampage because whatever they may think of their political opponents, they realise that it is wrong to murder them in cold blood.

Furthermore from what I have read elsewhere this person’s favourite books included Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/shooter-of-jewish-congresswoman-listed-mein-kampf-as-favorite-book-1.336025). I don’t think Left or Right should be pointing partisan fingers on this one.

Whenever these things happen, people start calling for something to be done about all those ‘anti-government extremists’ etc.

Point 1: The majority of people on Liberal Conspiracy are against the current UK government, right? So, you are anti-government, and when you attack Cameron and his chums you are engaging in ‘anti-government rhetoric’. If some crazy guy tries to kill a Tory MP, is that reason for you all to lose your freedom to criticise the government, or would you not say ‘it’s nothing to do with me. I didn’t call for the attack’. I expect the latter.

Point 2: People who have stood up against the policies of Obama and co, nothwithstanding whether they also stood up against the policies of Bush, have been routinely demonised as racist, violent etc. Their views have been dismissed with wholesale ad hominem, and it’s being ramped up with regard to this incident. You cannot claim that the rhetoric is from one side only. For an example here #13 above:

“an increasingly large anti-government, racist, ignorant “grassroots” movement “

@19

Yeahuh, but there is a reason why we have laws against incitement to violence.

Also, if a Democrat politician had campaigned in the disgusting way that Palin hitherto has done & a Rep. politican got shot you can bet the righties (like our pal Trofim here) would be out in full force blaming the pol.

@20

The point isn’t the views, it’s how they are expressed. Sarah Palin used the language of shooting people (very explicitly! RE-LOAD in caps, targets all over a map of the US, a hitlist). A political opponent of hers got shot. I’m not sure what the debate is here.

And yes, the Tea Party are racist and ignorant, on the whole. Call it an ad hom if you like. And they are backed by billionaires, it’s yet another astroturf fake movement.

This is all indicative of the US being totally & utterly screwed. The right have such a hold that Palin can – with a straight face – issue condolences to the deceased pople’s families.

“And yes, the Tea Party are racist and ignorant, on the whole. Call it an ad hom if you like.”

It’s got nothing to do with my opinion, it is clearly, unambiguously ad hominem. An example of what some would call ‘hate speech’.

@23, in the run up to the elections last November, Rep. Giffords was denounced by her GOP opponent as a Socialist, a Communist, a Fascist and a Traitor.

What was that about hate speech?

Oh look, you already called the suspect in the Tucson shootings a “crazy leftist”. Just like the Tea Party Nation told you to.

TT @ 20

A couple of points. Few of the participants of this blog, none of which represent the ‘target audience’ i.e. ‘the Left’ are ‘Anti Government’*. We may be anti THIS government, but we are not anti ‘Government’ in the way that the ‘Tea Party’ and/or survivalist nut jobs are, in principle, are. We want better Government, not ‘no Government’.

The ‘Tea Party’ advocates the ownership and use of fire-arms, and violence is an intrinsic part of their philosophy, albeit in ‘protecting America’ or merely hunting. With the best will in the World, no-one here, is advocating that we allow assault weapons to be owned by the general public.

The Tea Party have openly courted the hard core of the American ‘survivalist nutcase’ and guess what? A nutcase went into a supermarket and blew away a dozen people in the process of trying to do away of one of the enemies of the Country. Who would have thought that rhetoric DESIGNED to stir up the minds of the paranoid gun-owning fuckwits, ended up stirring up a fuckwit with a gun, eh?

*Pagar, if you do decide to go postal in the near future, please delete your ‘favourites’ and ‘history’ and save us the bother of trying to defend you

@13: “If you listen to Any Questions, at around 45 minutes, you will hear Ken Livingstone call for the present government of the UK to be incinerated”

What’s new? Btw I have never voted for Ken Livingstone. However, reportedly like him, in the London referendum in 1998 on whether we should have a Greater London Authority, I voted against. I took that as another of those screwed up Third Way notions Blair was apt to have, like trying to lumber every local authority with an elected executive mayor.

Rather predictable and very poor show that anyone is trying to make political capital from the actions of a man who was utterly barking. There are bound to be lunatics on both sides of any major disagreement; their existence doesn’t alter the validity of either side’s more sane arguments.

@9. soru

The UK has disturbed people, and it has Hollywood films and some US TV, but is, fortunately, so far, mostly missing the middle step. Maybe our politicians are a bit more sensible and moral than the current US crop. Or maybe it’s just that the underlying myth of righteous individual violence is not being pushed so heavily here, and so is less attractive for political use, a temptation more easily resisted.

I think it’s just a question of time.

Just have a look at the comments here: http://order-order.com/2011/01/08/nutroots-morning-report/comment-page-2/#comment-832892

eg

Lets get some nutjobs to take a leaf out of the Americans books and start shooting Lefties in the head, Harriet Harmans looks would vastly improve with a 9mm in the forehead for starters.

or:

The Huhne bitch took a slug into her skull, through her brain, and out the other side of her fucking skull. No wonder the Germans had to shoot, gas, burn, and mince up the remains of these subhuman Huhnes, to make sure they were dead.

This on a post where the editor boasts –

Guido managed to get a mention from the floor – apparently this blog shaped how the election turned out – Sunder reckoned Guido was too extremist and that left-wing blogs have more “range and depth”. In other words they are more boring.

Don’t let the fact that none of you have a fucking clue why Loughner did what he did stop you looking for scapegoats.

Loughner’s facebook page losts Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and The Wizard of Oz as among his favourite books.

Plucking a cod-psychological profile out of my arse I’d say he shot people because he was frightened by flying monkeys when he was a kid.

The murders are the first political assassinations of the Tea Party and it is doubtful that they will be the last. Just as Al Quaeda do not have to actually instruct people to kill on their behalf to be guilty. Being inspired by their violent rhetoric still leads the trail back to the rhetoric. The blowhards on Fox News, and Angle with her second amendment solutions and Palin with her cross hairs and don’t retreat reload rhetoric are guilty of poisoning the well and creating the context for these events to take place.

Sure, the apologists will seek to distance the blame from the crazies who predominately makeup the contemporary Republican Party. However, they are kidding no one. This has been brewing for twenty years as the Republicans have pretty much ostracised their sane wing leaving only the total fruitcakes. I worked in the US during the 1990s and could not believe the craziness coming from the insane wing of the US Right. When Obama got elected the mentalness just reached new levels of insanity. Only the gunman pulled the trigger but all the violent antigoverment rhetoric spewers are equally as guilty.

In a normal country Beck would be in an asylum. Palin would be charged with incitement to commit murder. O’ Reilly would not be allowed anywhere near a TV studio. Unfortunately, the contemporary US is far from a normal country and nine year old girls are executed as a consequence. Her blood is on the hands of the Tea Party and Fox News. The only saving grace is it has finished Palin as a political force and she can stay in Alaska praying to the Lord and staring at Russia.

Falco @ 28

There are bound to be lunatics on both sides of any major disagreement.

Is there? Show me the ‘lunatic’ on the pro healtcare side who took out a fire-arm and waded into Supermarket to kill half a dozen people?

The fact of the matter is, ‘healthcare’ attracts sane people and invoking rhetoric that depicts Obama as both ‘Hitler’ and the Anti Christ uses the term ‘Tea Party’ and constantly makes illusions to itself as a ‘freedom fighter/terrorists’ organisation whilst deliberately attempts to paint its political opponents as ‘traitors’ (in the real meaning of the word) is likely to attract a certain kind of person. I hesitate to use the term ‘lunatic’ or ‘insane’, but there can be little doubt that the Tea Party has been trying to tap into that ‘siege mentality’ that some Americans appear to wallow in.

‘Both film and music are vast privately-owned for-profit industries’

Obviously, violence is unknown in societies where film and music are controled by the State. Lets rap about tractors and make films extolling the virtues of the Five Year Plan – that way people will only shoot themselves, not other people.

Incidentally, Giffords was pro-Second Amendment.

Richard W,

yeah, right. So, what do you want to happen? Have them all rounded up? Put in camps? Re-educated?

Suits you.

Tim Hardy @ 28

I am not suprised that we have people who make such comments, but remember these people are NOT ‘scum’, merely misguided or have their hearts in the right place.

@30: ” I worked in the US during the 1990s and could not believe the craziness coming from the insane wing of the US Right. When Obama got elected the mentalness just reached new levels of insanity.”

Please, remind us. Why do we want a “special relationship” with America, especially when it has Republican administrations? I can understand the rationale for the special relationship between Churchill and FDR during WW2 and, post-war, Truman was an unexpectedly outstanding president. But why George W Bush?

‘In a normal country Beck would be in an asylum. Palin would be charged with incitement to commit murder. O’ Reilly would not be allowed anywhere near a TV studio.’

If you want to prevent people who already think a national health service is Stalinist from running amock its probably best not to resort to Stalinist rhetoric about declaring your opposition insane and locking them up.

Shatterface,

keep going, you’re doing great!

@34. Jim

I don’t think you are implying that I called these people “scum” but I’d like to categorically deny that I did in case you are.

Yes, I agree completely. It is those that society has most comprehensively failed that are drawn to extremist politics and their understandable anger at the many injustices that exist has been poisoned and twisted into a murderous hatred of those that they identify as the cause of their problems. I also suspect that many would be classified as having quite serious mental health issues.

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s pretty frightening to see commenters openly calling for the murder of elected officials and celebrating the Holocaust on what is an extremely popular UK blog.

33. Trooper Thompson

Richard W,

“yeah, right. So, what do you want to happen? Have them all rounded up? Put in camps? Re-educated?

Suits you.”

Not at all. Everyone is entitled to their own political point of view and oppose politics that they disagree with. However, serious political parties have a responsibility to express their rhetoric in moderate language. Especially in a nation of armed citizens with a history of political assassination. Words do have effect and the rhetoric in the US has been poisonous for twenty years. The Republicans have not just did nothing to calm the atmosphere but have positively encouraged it. Sensible conservatives like Frum have been warning since last year that they were playing with fire and stirring up the crazies would come back and bite them. Guess he was right.

Jim, is it getting crowded in the trolling bin with Sally? If you want a list of those who have caused terrible harm imposing well meaning governmental solutions then there is no great difficulty in finding that.

I would remind you that a) this chap was a nutter b) we don’t actually know what motivated him at this point and c) it wouldn’t make any difference to the merits or otherwise of ObamaCare. Still, don’t let any of this stop you demonising those who don’t happen to agree with your doubtlessly perfect views.

@38 Given that Jim is quite happy to call those he disagrees with “scum” I suspect that he was suggesting that you should as well.

“Not at all.”

I’m glad to hear it.

” Everyone is entitled to their own political point of view and oppose politics that they disagree with. However, serious political parties have a responsibility to express their rhetoric in moderate language. Especially in a nation of armed citizens with a history of political assassination.”

You can call me anti-government if you like, but a lot of those political assassinations in America were done by people within the government e.g. MLK, JFK, RFK. The US government is dangerous, and has admitted to having a policy of assassination in other countries, if not its own (yeah, I’m sure the DC Madame committed suicide ad infinitum), and the citizens have every reason to want to be armed in self-preservation.

Anyway, we don’t know anything yet about the guy’s motives. For once, the shooter has been taken alive. That alone makes this shooting exceptional.

Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy were shot and died. Ronald Reagan was shot and wounded.
Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford were all victims of assassination attempts with guns.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_Presidents_have_been_shot

The USA has always had a troubled relationship between guns and politicians – isn’t this latest bloodbath just par for the course?

@43: “The USA has always had a troubled relationship between guns and politicians – isn’t this latest bloodbath just par for the course?”

True enough but over the last decade or so, I’ve become aware of an increasing amount of heavyweight journalism and academic research in America focused on variations on the theme: Has politics in America become more polarised?

Here is one recent example, which considers whether increasing political polarisation in America could be linked to the increasing inequality of income distribution:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jdyck/Campbell_f07.pdf

Here’s a link to the report of a two-day conference run by Princeton University in 2004 on: The Polarization of American Politics – Myth or Reality?
http://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Polarization2004/Polarizationfinal.pdf

FWIW my own penny worth is an observation that increasing polarisation is linked to the growing influence of the Religious Right (RR). The state of the Republican Party is now such that presidential hopefulls can’t win through the nomination process without the backing of the RR and Republican presidential candidates cannot get elected to the Presidency without the endorsement and support of the RR.

Sinclair Lewis recognised the growing populist influence of the evangelical movements in America in his satirical novel Elmer Gantry (1927):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry

See this clip of the opening scene of the movie starring Burt Lancaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amznbi0lFaU

“On publication in 1927, Elmer Gantry created a public furor. The book was banned in Boston and other cities and denounced from pulpits across the USA. One cleric suggested that Lewis should be imprisoned for five years, and there were also threats of physical violence against the author.”

‘FWIW my own penny worth is an observation that increasing polarisation is linked to the growing influence of the Religious Right (RR).’

Loughner’s a self-professed atheist so not part of a ‘religious’ anything. Having looked at the evidence so far about his political alegiances I can’t make any coherent sense out him whatsoever – and none of you can either. Any pattern in his belief system you can see is something you are imposing on him not something actually present.

He read Mein Kampf so maybe he’s a Nazi assassinating someone he saw as a communist forcing people to take out medical insurance against their will? He read The Communist Manifesto so maybe he’s a lefty assasinating an anti-immigration politician? He read Brave New World so maybe he think’s Obama’s health plans are like eugenics? He read The Wizard of Oz so maybe he’s a repressed friend of Dorothy? He’s an atheist and how can you expect him *not* to kill without god’s guidance?

You’ll find ‘supporting evidence’ for whatever prejudice you bring to bear on him. The guy’s ranting is all over the place; thinking you’ve found a pattern in it is like thinking a cloud shaped like a camel is *actually* a camel.

And I wish people would stop throwing around words like ‘schizophrenia’ as well? If you don’t know what the word means don’t use it.

Nobody here knows shit about his politics or his state of mind – nor has he even been convicted of any offence, as yet. For christ’s sake, people can’t make sense of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that was nearly 40 years ago. To make wild accusations about political opponents or rap music at this stage is just an exercise in bullshit.

One guy goes crazy, and the whole nation has to search their souls. Lacking the guns in this country, we find alternatives: ‘Baby P? Are we all guilty’.

No, we’re not.

Tim Hardy @ 38

Sorry Tim, just a little joke based on things that have been said on other threads. However, people calling for Harman et al to get a bullet in the forehead, albeit as a ‘joke’ are nice people, to put it midly.

Falco @ 41

Not people who I merely ‘disagree’ with, no. People whose entire political philosophy is based upon attacking, dehumanising and exploiting the most vulnerable in our society are ‘scum’ in my book. Sorry if that is confrontational, but there you go.

There is nothing ‘well meaning’ in driving mentally and psychically ill people into an already saturated labour market, then when they cannot find a job, force them into unpaid labour pools for some of our most profitable business to exploit, then allowing those companies to pay people off therefore making sure that there is a never ending supply of forced labour to exploit. That is not ‘heart in the right place’ mistakes, that is a cynical policy of driving people into poverty.

Still, don’t let any of this stop you demonising those who don’t happen to agree with your doubtlessly perfect views.

Now I know you are having a fucking laugh. Dehumanising? Good grief a political movement have spent an entire decade hehumanising everyone who is not a dyed in the wool Tory!

@46 Shatterface

Anyone who has done a politics course at uni will have read the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto and dipped into Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which, unlike the Manifesto, is excruciatingly boring. It was said of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, that while Party members kept a copy prominently displayed on bookshelves for visitors to behold, few actually read the book.

I was less concerned to speculate on Loughner’s motives – or those of the mysterious character who is said to have driven him to the meeting – than to consider a political climate in America where a succession of academics have focused on the question of whether American politics has become more polarised. The general view seems to be that politics has become more polarised.

I think the idea that a nation of 250m people of wildly different social backgrounds, political allegiances and ethnic backgrounds, not to mention individual psychological makeups, might have something akin to a ‘soul’ is just quasi-religious claptrap.

‘Souls’ carry the burden of ‘original sin’ – and that’s what commentators are really looking for, a simple narrative of good and evil, angels and demons.

‘Anyone who has done a politics course at uni will have read the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto and dipped into Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which, unlike the Manifesto, is excruciatingly boring.’

He didn’t just read them, he listed them as among his favourite books on Facebook – plus Plato’s Republic, which, if I remember, proposes banning epic poets from said Republic lest their violent rhetoric influence the impressionable young.

Yes, America seems to have become increasingly polarised – but I’m buggered if I can see what ‘pole’ Loughner actually belongs to. Maybe Jodie Foster just unfriended him.

TT @ 47

Lacking the guns in this country, we find alternatives: ‘Baby P? Are we all guilty’.

Fuck me, it that meant to be joke? Christ, when the baby ‘P’ tragedy happened you cunts had a fucking field day. The entire Libertarian movement went into full erection, foam mouth mode. Everything from ‘sixty years of socialism’, ‘slags having babies for benefits’, ‘The State murdered this child’ and every other nauseating sentiment was dragged out, and what’s more, you know it.

Not only that, but you people lay EVERY single piece of news is squarely onto the shoulders of the Left. Every terrorist outrage is a ‘failure of multi culturalism’, every unemployed person is a failure of the Welfare State, every murder is a failure of Social engineering, every job loss, every out of control youth.

@ 52 Jim

I think (provisionally) that that’s not what Trooper’s saying. I think he’s coming up with an equivalent of national guilt experienced after gun massacres for a relatively gun-free state like ours.

Like you, however, I’ve experienced it to be less “national guilt” and more “national blame-everyone-you-don’t-like-for-allowing-this-to-happen”.

@51: “He didn’t just read them, he listed them as among his favourite books on Facebook ”

He’s an attention seeker – so what? Naive, unread folks get very excited by claims that someone has read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

Short of a report on Loughner by a forensic psychiatrist, there’s little we can say about his personal motivation – or the personal motivation of other characters who have randomly shot people, as periodically happens in America.

We can, however, discuss observable change in the political climate in America – and the view of many political analysts there that American politics is becoming increasingly polarised. Others have remarked on the volume of extremist criticisms of President Obama and the persistence of claims that his Presidency is unconstitutional.

“Fuck me, it that meant to be joke?”

More of a comment on the way it was reported in some papers.

“you cunts had a fucking field day”

I said nothing on the subject. I think you must be thinking of the Daily Mail.

“Not only that, but you people lay EVERY single piece of news is squarely onto the shoulders of the Left. ”

Again, not me. I blame the State mainly. The problem with the left is it is so supportive of the State. We keep telling you that it’s bad, but you keep thinking you can make it work in a good way. It can’t. Power corrupts.

“Every terrorist outrage is a ‘failure of multi culturalism’”

I usually blame secret intelligence services, but that’s me – ‘a conspiracy theorist’.

Chaise, the point that people who refer to the political climate of overblown and violent rhetoric are making is that those who contribute to that poisonous climate are just as guilty as those who pull the trigger. If that means tarring the Beck’s, Limbaugh and Palin so be it. Hopefully I am not committing a Godwin when I say this. But the Nazis did not just appear in the 1930s to persecute the Jews. There was a whole undercurrent of antisemitism and demonising that had gone on for some time that they built on. The people who had contributed to that were just as guilty for the holocaust as the Nazis. So, it does not matter what motivated Loughner. The culture of violent political rhetoric that has got worse over the last twenty years created the context where his acts were more likely to happen.

@ Jim: “Still, don’t let any of this stop you demonising those who don’t happen to agree with your doubtlessly perfect views.

Now I know you are having a fucking laugh. Dehumanising?”

No, demonising. Please learn to read before spouting.

“People whose entire political philosophy is based upon attacking, dehumanising and exploiting the most vulnerable in our society are ‘scum’ in my book. Sorry if that is confrontational, but there you go.”

Where you get your ideas about what I believe I don’t know, it’s not from this reality at any rate.

“those who contribute to that poisonous climate are just as guilty as those who pull the trigger”

Jim, this is what I was talking about!

Charles Manson never killed anyone, he just told his followers their names and addresses.

Sarah Palin didn’t pull the trigger, she just had the Congresswoman’s name on a poster under a crosshair target (something she has scrubbed from her website and deleted posts linking to it from her Facebook page).

Bill O’Reilly didn’t kill George Tiller, he just called him “Tiller the baby killer” numerous times over a year before Scott Rhoder murdered him in a church.

Glen Beck will excuse his actions. It’s not like his violent elinationist rhetoric has led to Byron Williams attempting to kill people working for the Tides Foundation who he described as “a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America”only to be luckily stopped by a routine police stop before he got there. Or influenced Richard Poplowski with his lies about President Obama “coming to take his guns away” resulting in the deaths of three policemen.

I won’t even bother to add the rhetoric from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and others in the media or those of Bachmann, Angle, West and Congresswoman Gifford’s opponent in the recent election.

No. All you will see in the next few days is the infinite memory void of the right wing echo chamber acting like Captain fucking Renault from Casablanca who are just shocked, shocked to see someone acting out on what they have been saying since Jan 20th 2009.

On another thread someone asked how these right wingers sleep at night. The answer is simple. They sleep like fucking babies because this is something their actions have been leading to and they care little for the damage despite tearfully waving the bloody shirt of victimhood around.

As someone who’s never met or spoken with Jared Loughner, or anyone who’s ever met or spoken with his family, friends or anyone who’s met or spoken with him, I feel eminently qualified to pontificate on the fellow’s desires, influences and motivations. After all, every other bugger seems to be.

Gah, sorry, that was me.

Charles Manson never killed anyone, he just told his followers their names and addresses.

Er, yes – you realise that the bit where he told them to kill them was of at least some significance?

More than likely related:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110002

Jailhouse Confession: How the right-wing media and Glenn Beck’s chalkboard drove Byron Williams to plot assassination

Also add in the fact that Sarah Palin and her people are hoping that people are as stupid and uninformed as they are:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/palin-aide-crosshairs-on-target-list-not-actually-gun-sights.php?ref=fpb

“An aide to Sarah Palin claims the crosshairs depicted in her now-infamous target list of Democrats were not actually gun-sights, and that it’s “obscene” and “appalling” to blame Palin for the shooting.

“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” said Rebecca Mansour on the Tammy Bruce radio show. Moreover, there was “nothing irresponsible” about the image, and to draw a line connecting Palin and Saturday’s shooting is “obscene” and “appalling.”

Next thing you know she will be claiming that it’s just a Siberian Hamster.

Have to admit, though, this is an amusing lie…

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/palin-aide-symbols-werent-rifle-sights-but-surveyors-marks/69163/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/ZZ5B454227.jpg

Ben Six.

And Glen Beck has only told his viewers and listeners that Obama and those who supporthim are doing their bst to destroy America and to stop them in any way possible before adding the mealy mouthed “Not that i’m actually saying kill them all” . Just last week he was quoting a member of the original Black Panthers as a means to an end. The man has no shame when it comes to things like this.

Ben Six:

You missed a classic at the Atlantic:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/comment-of-the-day.html

“Refudiation free zone here. 20 people are mowed down in a grocery store and Palin thinks she’s the victim? Typical. You don’t get to spend 3 years blowing a dog whistle and yelling fire in a theater then get to wash your hands of it when it goes bad,” – from a commenter on Politico.

Via Digby:

“On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association’s contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become “tyrannical.” The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:”:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

‘the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become “tyrannical.”’

It’s a great principle, isn’t it? Or are you more of a Hobbesian? Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Yes those awful Republicans must be stopped.

It was only last year that Beck and Palin held a rally in the nations capital and the ignorant, inbred crackers attacked the HQ of the governing party. Vandalising property, assaulting police officers and one slack jawed red-neck threw a fire extinguisher off the roof!

Oh wait……

It’s odd that the Restoring Honor Rally passed off completely peacefully yet a smaller rally in London attended by the best and brightest of this country decends into mob violence. Must be all that hateful rhetoric aimed at the Conservative Party from the The Guardian, Labour, the BBC and Liberal Conspiracy.

Remember the Census worker that committed suicide in Kentucky? – the left blamed Conservatives for that as well. Here is what the sainted Andrew Sullivan
said at the time.

there is a possibility that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts

.

I guess that if you blame Palin/Beck/Fox and the GOP for everything bad that happens then the chances are that you might be right one day……………….

@ 30 Richard W

“Rhetoric spewers”

Takes one to know one I suppose.

I’d note that the Left are very quick to blame the repblicans when something like this happens – especially given there is no evidence at all that this wasn’t jsut a lone nutjob harbouring a grudge since 2007….with no links to the republicans or the Tea party.

Quite a comparison to when Reagan was shot – there wasn’t any finger pointing the other way around.

“I guess that if you blame Palin/Beck/Fox and the GOP for everything bad that happens then the chances are that you might be right one day”

If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck you call it what it is.

Republican Pravda may have true believes like you convinced that they are all sainted people there for the benign benefit of all those “good christianist americans” but the rest of us see what you wish to gloss over, a nasty dark element relying on fear, intimidation and the dehumanising of opponents be they liberals in general, the poor, minorities or LGBT. In fact, anyone who isn’t a rich white male banker or oilman in the top 5% of the US populace.

The pretzel twisting that will be going on from the right wing this week to excuse the actions from the likes of Beck, Palin and Limbaugh will be moving at great speed but some actions are remembered long after 30 second soundbites and this is one of them.

Interesting Tyler that your first concern is to disabuse anyone of the notion that the Republican Tea Party fruitcakes bear any responsibility rather than any concern for the acts themselves. Of course, he was a lone nutjob. No one is saying he was working for or connected to those organisations. However, they created the climate of hate where he was more likely to happen. If you piss in the pool, I guess you bear responsibility for piss being in the pool.

Peter Daou on the the bogus equivalency between right/left extremism:

http://peterdaou.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-and-the-rightwing-hate-machine/

“We do not yet know whether the Arizona massacre was directly fueled by rightwing rhetoric. But we do know this: one of the most dangerous myths promulgated by the media and political establishment is that there is a comparable level of extremism among conservatives and liberals, that left and right are mirror images.

Even the most cursory perusal of rightwing radio, television, blogs and assorted punditry illustrates a profound distinction: in large measure, the right’s overarching purpose is to stoke hatred of the left, of liberalism. The right’s messaging infrastructure, meticulously constructed and refined over decades, promotes an image of liberals as traitors and America-haters, unworthy of their country and bent on destroying it. There is simply no comparable propaganda effort on the left.

The imbalance is stark: Democrats and liberals rail against the right’s ideas; the right rails against the left’s very existence.

The result is an atmosphere where bigotry thrives, where science and reason are under assault, where progress (associated with progressivism) is frowned upon. And it’s an atmosphere where violence becomes more likely. Pretending this is not the case is to enable it.”

Think things are bad now?

The incoming congress is looking at doing more than Joe McCarthy with politically led “investigations” of everyone from the smeared and defunded ACORN, letting off BP, dehumaising immigrats and brown skinned americans, all the way through to trying to destroy the reputations of respectable scientists because, as is stated above. anything to do with the left has to be destroyed. That is the major difference and that is where the rhetoic and violent talk comes into effect causing more fear and violent reprisals.

“it would be pointless for me to call the national mood in a country that I only really know in the liberal guise of its northern cities”

but that won’t stop me!!

“I suspect the causes lie far deeper in the US soul”

PS When Loughner supporters throw rose petals over him on his way to court, as supporters of Salman Taseer’s killer did in Pakistan, then I will start worrying about the “US soul”.

“PS When Loughner supporters throw rose petals over him on his way to court, as supporters of Salman Taseer’s killer did in Pakistan, then I will start worrying about the “US soul”.”

Wow. So thats your view?

So much for the vaunted “American Exceptionism” then.

If your low idea of standards for decent Americans is the actions of terrorist supporters in Pakistan it says more about you and your values than anything else.

Mysteriously to you, I hold everyone to the same standards.

Obviously you have lower expectations of Pakistanis than of Americans.

[76] Palin & Co are too busy deleting any perceived links to the crime to throw petals?
http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html

@71 “I’d note that the Left are very quick to blame the repblicans when something like this happens – especially given there is no evidence at all that this wasn’t jsut a lone nutjob harbouring a grudge since 2007….with no links to the republicans or the Tea party.”

You clearly miss the point. The issue here is not the Republican party per se but the number of right wing shock jocks who use inflammatory and violent language to dehumanise and demonise their opponents. This greatly contributes to the climate of hatred and intolerance that helps to fuel the anxieties of right wing nutjobs like Loughner. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin et al would all claim to be Republican and act in the interest of that party.

NB on the topic of the “US soul”, the murder rate has fallen steadily from a peak in 1980 of 10 / 100,000 to 5 / 100,000 in 2009.

So let’s stop the Hollywood / videogame amateur psychology bollocks, shall we?

Nothing is ever so left-right straightforward as you guys tend to make it:

When the front door of her congressional office was smashed through in March, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had a simple message for her detractors: “I have a Glock 9mm and I’m a pretty good shot.”

Miss Giffords, 40, once a Republican, changed allegiance in 1999 and is part of the co-called “Blue dog” Democrat coalition which favours fiscal conservatism. She is regarded as a centrist in favour of renewable energy and health care reform, but who also supports gun rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8249256/Gabrielle-Giffords-profile-of-the-Congresswoman-fighting-for-her-life.html

“This greatly contributes to the climate of hatred and intolerance that helps to fuel the anxieties of right wing nutjobs like Loughner.”

How many right-wing nutjobs do you know who list the Communist Manifesto as one of their favourite books? This guy isn’t right-wing or left-wing, he’s just a nutter.

[83] “he’s just a nutter” ……….. yes, but a nutter with a GUN!!

CJ @ 81

So let’s stop the Hollywood / videogame amateur psychology bollocks, shall we?

Lets also hope that doctors keep improving the survival rates of gunshot wounds, too. I read a report about two years ago suggesting that a good slice of that is down to RE rooms becoming more experienced in treating gun and knife attacks, to the extent that Army surgeons were being trained in Civy street. I don’t have a link to hand though, but I bet someone here does.

Some of it perhaps.

Though alas for you America haters (bet you like the shopping though) overall violent crime per capita has fallen 45% from its peak.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

“Obviously you have lower expectations of Pakistanis than of Americans.”

No, l have lower standards for those who support, condone or try to deflect from those whose violent rhetoric leads to violence. I have high standards for those who see where this was obviously leading to and tried to get it to stop.

If you look at any list anywhere you will see that none of the names come from leading media figures or politicians on the American right.

The US right even took a report from the Bush Administration Homeland Security department warning about the rise of right wing extremism and the targeting of military veterans to join their ranks and twisted it as an attack from the Obama administration on the US military calling them all domestic terrorists!!

This is just the next stage of waving the bloody shirt of victimhood.

Hollywood remains the fantasy murder capital of the world. Loughner, only in his early twenties, will have seen tens of thousands of people wasted on celluloid and on perhaps on his own computer screen. Shooting cops is widely glorified in popular music. Both film and music are vast privately-owned for-profit industries.

Well that’s one analysis, or you could pick masculinity, talk radio, gun laws, the liberal media, or a fiendish plot by Obama supporters to undermine the Tea Party movement.

Gah – it’s one of the incidents that makes me think of the blind men and the elephant.

We have plenty of hard-right apologists on here, don’t we? Fortunately, Alexander Cockburn saw them coming, over at The First Post

The shock jock right is now trying to argue that Loughner is somehow a Commie, perhaps because he listed the Communist Manifesto as well as Mein Kampf on his website. It won’t wash. He was a gold bug, tormented by the role of the dollar as America’s fiat currency. This is standard on the right-wing menu. (More interesting is his charge that the American government was trying to control the citizenry through grammar, an accusation that a member of the Marxist Frankfurt school would argue as having some merit, though I doubt Loughner is versed in Adorno or Marcuse.)

“There are bound to be lunatics on both sides of any major disagreement; their existence doesn’t alter the validity of either side’s more sane arguments.”

Well the major (home grown) acts of major political violence in recent years have come from the right in the US. The Oklahoma bombing, abortion clinic bombings, olympics bombings, the various racially motivated attacks and lynch mobs etc. On the other side, leftist violence largely hasn’t been an issue since the mid 70s. I can’t think of a major incident really.

I’m not saying the right in the US is inherantly violent though. The percentage of its followers who end up doing such things is minute, and the vast majority condem and abhor the violence. What is the case though is that the right has a network of shock jocks, inflamatory TV pundits etc who have the capacity to reach millions of people. Their left wing equivelants don’t. Hence derranged and easily led people with a tendancy for violence only hear the anger of the right, and are thus sucked into it and it is this that motivates them. Were there the equivelant of far left radio hosts and prominant individuals getting publicity then some of these people would no doubt get sucked into a different belief system and still commit violent acts – just with different motivations.

What this does mean though is that individuals who reach millions of people should perhaps think a little more about how their messages and rhetorical style can be mis-interpreted and taken too literally by a small percentage of those listening.

He was a gold bug, tormented by the role of the dollar as America’s fiat currency.

Oh for God’s sake. He was a loon. He was most tormented by his bizarre ideas about grammar. Read this stuff:

Firstly, the current government officials are in power for their currency, but I’m informing you for your new currency! If you’re treasurer of a new money system, then you’re responsible for the distributing of a new currency. We now know – the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new money system which is promising new information that’s accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, you have your new currency, listener?

…In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

Pulling political meaning out of this stuff is like trying to get a ‘magic eye’ picture out of TV static.

[91] “I’m not saying the right in the US is inherantly violent though” – in 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States – over 80 deaths every day, while in 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries.

These rates are way above those amongst comparable liberal democracies – one important differential is ease of access to guns?

According to one authority – “Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate”.
Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology – University of Ottawa
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Sorry, should have added these problems are not exclusive to the right – just that the right are most vocal in preventing a reduction in the availability of guns.

@86 “Though alas for you America haters (bet you like the shopping though) overall violent crime per capita has fallen 45% from its peak”.

That’s a nice line in reductive thinking. What is the source for this figure? Take your time.

When Loughner supporters throw rose petals over him on his way to court, as supporters of Salman Taseer’s killer did in Pakistan, then I will start worrying about the “US soul”.

Er, cjcjc, I don’t think this shooting is evidence of much except the strange, strange mind of Jared Loughner but that’s a bit like a Headteacher saying, “I’ll worry about class 4B when they force their maths teacher to drink their collective urine”.

“Oh for God’s sake. He was a loon. He was most tormented by his bizarre ideas about grammar.”

I keep reading about another case of a “twisted loner” when assassinations and random shooting events occur. America seems to have an endless supply and some of us are inclined to wonder why that is and whether Americans might start wondering too. Is it in the genes or the environment?

97 – Well there are 300 million of them, and twisted loner political assassinations aren’t exactly limited to the US. Ask Olof Palme, Stephen Saunders or Anna Lindh. Or Pim Fortuyn.

Meanwhile here’s a collection of banners from the far more rational left for your entertainment:

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

“That’s a nice line in reductive thinking. What is the source for this figure? Take your time.”

Erm, the link I posted immediately afterwards.

While here’s a great example of Guardianista consistency:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2011/01/two_contrasting.html

Quiz question: which US politician said in 2008 “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun”?

Answer:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

I’ve godda admit to ya, anonymous strangers, I’m kinda torn. On the one hand none of us has any idea what inspired Jared Loughner to this nasty crime. On the other, that doesn’t mean that U.S. partisan debate isn’t a degrading exercise in machismo and rank dishonesty. I think that, as ever, if you want to do something productive you’ll say “screw ’em all” and stop propping up a culture that divides, rules and cries crocodile tears when inevitable clusterfucks – which may or may not include this one – go down.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

Seems that people who knew him describe him as a leftie.

Frankly I don’t think he had a clue.

@103: “On the one hand none of us has any idea what inspired Jared Loughner to this nasty crime”

Maybe not but Clarence Dupnik, the local Pima county sheriff, has very clear percpetions of contributing factors: “the sheriff who turned the focus on rightwing rhetoric”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/giffords-shooting-sheriff-rightwing-rhetoric

According to reports, in custody, Jared Loughner is refusing to say anything.

It’s curious how the usual proponents of waterboarding for interrogations to obtain vital information to save lives are keeping a low profile on this one

Bob B,

what’s on your mind? Do you want to waterboard Loughner until he confesses to being a Tea Party supporter?

“Do you want to waterboard Loughner until he confesses to being a Tea Party supporter?”

I don’t personally endorse use of torture to gain confessions even if security issues are at stake but some leading members of GW Bush’s administration defended the practice to save lives and Mr Loughner seems to qualify.

I thought it therefore more than a little curious that they hadn’t stood up to propose a reversion to effective traditional practices in the circumstances. After all, we were previously assured that information gained from waterboarding saved lives and was Constitutional.

“I don’t personally endorse use of torture to gain confessions even if security issues are at stake”

I’m glad to hear it. I hope you condemn the practice, no matter what government is in power.

I just clicked onto Trooper Thompson’s linked webpage. Can someone please pass me the brain bleach?

The police in Arizona will need to take very special care of Mr Jared Loughner to avoid what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald, another “loner” who was alleged to have shot President Kennedy on 22 November 1963?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtsuXQYNVPQ

I believe that few us who were alive when President Kennedy was assassinated believe the truth of what happened has come out.

Try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcHwMqc5pTA

Bob B,

I think the truth is pretty much out now, but some still prefer the ludicrous Warren Commission version. The one infamous assassination of that era where the truth has properly come out is in the case of MLK, due to a court case brought by the King family against a man called Lloyd Jowers, who had got rid of the rifle from the real killer, and a jury found against the guy, after hearing a whole lot of the dirty truth, such as the back-up military snipers team on the fire station roof. Look up the lawyer on this case, William F Pepper.

Thanks for the plug, Cylux!

According to this early filed report of initial court proceedings, Loughner faces the death penalty if convicted on the premeditated homicide charges:

Jared Loughner appears in court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8251462/Jared-Loughner-appears-in-court.html

One of the uninitended consequences of the attempted assassination and the killings is this: Sarah Palin hit by fallout from Arizona shooting spree
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/sarah-palin-arizona-shooting-fallout

@Jim: No answer? I might think you were a schmuck at this rate.

Very good comment from Andrew Sullivan in today’s Gruniard – “There is no way to understand the politics of this without Palin. She has long been the leader of the movement that drapes itself in military garb, that marinates in violent rhetoric, that worships gun culture, that has particular ferocity in the state of Arizona, and that never ever apologises for anything. My hope is that this horrifying momentary conflation of politics, guns and mental illness will lead responsible figures on the right to eschew the path of Palin.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/sarah-palin-arizona-shooting-fallout

This latest act of violence has probably shot down Palin’s chance of presidency as well?

I haven’t laughed so hard at a thread since the days of British lefties confidently predicting that a black man would be prevented from winning the presidential nomination by a redneck’s bullet.

Interesting that the roots of anti-Americanism run so deep and persistent in Europe. Americans were despised long before 1776 because they were so much more free, vital and rich than the Old Worlders. Plus ca change…

[116]

Americans were despised long before 1776 because they were so much more free, vital and rich than the Old Worlders.

Evidence? Or do you consider your unsupported word sufficient?

De Tocqueville, for one, admired them.

Evidence?

Try this for starters:

Australasian Journal of American Studies
“Anti-Americanism”, edited by Andrew & Kristin Ross, New York University Press
Wikipedia (for those with “American” attention spans)

Now… where’s yours, pal?

[118] Right. You are going to supply the quotes from those authors to back up your position, yes? I suspect that their view is a tad more nuanced than yours…

You are going to supply the quotes from those authors to back up your position, yes?

No, I’m going to leave it to you to get off your cyber-arse and do that — assuming the big words don’t stump you.

(And if you had actually READ De Tocqueville, instead of dimly recalling his name, you would realize that he discusses the history of European anti-Americanism in Democracy in America.)

Sometimes I wish we ran polls on here. Then we could find out how many of the readers of this blog are impressed with Scooby’s style of argument – dishing out abuse as though it were going out of fashion, hiding behind a nom de blog and an absolute refusal to provide evidence to bakc up wild assertions.

Of course, I shouldn’t have been so foolish as to engage with him. And the next time someone behaves like that here, I shan’t.

“We are the insurgency. We have to force them to listen to us. We can’t just complain, we have to organise and be in a constant state of war.”

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/22/lc-mission-series-part-2-an-insurgency-at-the-gates/

“politics is a permanent state of war”

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/categories/party-politics

@Johnbarnes,

hats off for those two finds! I’m sure someone will be able to explain why it’s completely different when such violent imagery is conjured with by the lovable left.

the a&e charge nurse

This latest act of violence has probably shot down Palin’s chance of presidency as well?

I would think that if the left continue to revel in, and exploit this tragedy for political gain, it may well end up working in her favour. A poll shows that two thirds of Americans don’t think political rhetoric had anything to do with with this tragedy. They’ll grow sick and tired of the left’s exploitation of (and double-standards on) this event.

And the left’s gyno-in-chief is hardly a reputable source for matters such as this.

[124] I find it impossible to imagine that these words will not come back to haunt Palin’s credibility as future leader?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs

Why would an opponent issue this type of warning unless there was genuine fear about the relationship between aggressive rhetoric and the effect it might have on certain sorts of extremist on the fringe of political life?

Quote from Tuesday’s Financial Times:

“Ms Palin’s star has risen in the past year as a potent and powerful symbol of the grassroots conservative movement, making her a potential candidate to be the Republican challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2012 election. . .

“The focus on Ms Palin coincides with increased scrutiny from her party. Karl Rove, who was George W. Bush’s chief political adviser and still plays a key role in fundraising and advising Republican candidates, last year questioned whether Ms Palin was suitable for president.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a004d3a2-1ceb-11e0-8c86-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Alql0Uab

And in the Telegraph:

“In a discussion [in an internet forum] apparently started by Mr Loughner last July about currencies – a common theme in his online trail – a member using the name mordant1 intervened.

“‘I think you’re frankly schizophrenic, and no that’s not an amateur opinion and not intended as an uninformed or insulting remark,’ he said.

“‘You clearly make no sense and are unable to communicate. I really do care. Seek help before you hurt yourself or others or start taking your medications again, please.’

“The contributor assumed to be Mr Loughner replied: ‘Thank you for the concern.'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8253211/Arizona-shooting-Jared-Loughner-was-urged-to-seek-help.html

A&e

Because that is what the left have been doing for the past two years- scaremongering about supposed political violence. They have been living in this fantasy land for a while. There’s no evidence Loughner ever saw the map so why are the left adding two and two together to make five. Marks Moulitsas (Daily Kos) put a bullseye on Giffords seat. Why is he not culpable?

Bearing in mind that the only thing we know about Loughner’s politics is that he is “left wing, fairly liberal”‘ it’s more likely that Moulitsas was a greater influence on him than Palin.

I agree with you that that video represents a threat to any Palin presidential run, but if the left overplay their hand and the public don’t buy into this “dangerous political rhetoric” rubbish and Palin deals with the issue properly, then it may well end up working to her advantage as the victim of a media that the public already despise. Remember that the biggest problem for Palin is that she doesn’t have all her party behind her yet. This is a great way to get them onside.

One last point. I’m a pretty vocal Palin supporter. But I never saw that notorious map until left wing blog after left wing blog started spreading it about the Internet. If it was so “dangerous”, why were they so happy to circulate it around the web?

“I’m a pretty vocal Palin supporter”

HOT Sarah Palin is the basis of the popular appeal:
http://en.zappinternet.com/video/FoTcFukYog/Candidata-Sarah-Palin-en-Banador

That’s really scary since Palin interviews like an incoherent twit, as this interview – and many similar – convincingly demonstrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ

Bob B

That’s right. The only reason I like Sarah Palin is because she’s hot. It’s got nothing to do with my view that there is scope for a working class conservatism, that I’m likely to support anyone who takes the view, and acted to, lessen the overpowering reach of government, that a person who understands that the west is something to celebrate, not apologise for, that government is better when closer to the people not palmed off on to undemocratic international organisations etc etc.

And I’ve heard plenty of incoherenve out of Obama – did you know Austrians spoke “Austrian” btw. I’d rather listen to the substance of her words, not the style. But then of course I’m neither sexist or shallow.

@Conservative cabbie

“Bearing in mind that the only thing we know about Loughner’s politics is that he is “left wing, fairly liberal”‘ it’s more likely that Moulitsas was a greater influence on him than Palin”

Really? You know this for sure? Because the information that I have says the contrary. But it’s a nice opportunity to engage in a little smearing. No?

Tell me this, why do women like Palin feel it necessary to be pictured holding and firing guns? Is it because the US is a very macho country that regards anything that is seen as characteristically female as ‘inferior’?

@129
“That’s right. The only reason I like Sarah Palin is because she’s hot”

Says it all really. It’s not the poor choice of words that fall from her mouth that impress. She’s “hot”. Give me strength.

buddyhell

Or bloody hell! Can’t you recognize sarcasm?

Really? You know this for sure? Because the information that I have says the contrary. But it’s a nice opportunity to engage in a little smearing. No?

So let me get this straight. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Loughner has even seen Palin’s map but it’s ok for the left to lay the blame at Palin’s door regardless. What’s that if not smearing. On the other hand, that “left wing, fairly liberal” was a direct quote from someone who knew Loughner three years ago. I don’t know what his politics is now, and nor do you. But with what little we do know, the trend is to the left of the spectrum – anti-war, anti-religion on top of the “fairly liberal” quote. The thing is, unlike the left, I’m not trying to assert that he is motivated by politics. I think he’s a pot smoking nutter and that’s all that should have been said on the matter.

Buddy

The claim that Loughner was tied to American Renanissance has already been
debunked.

Try to keep up.

Loughner is one issue and Palin another.

Years before Loughner – or Palin’s astonishing ascendancy for the 2008 Presidential – heavyweight journalism and academic research were on to the theme of the increasing polarisation of politics in America – eg see links @44

There’s emerging evidence that Loughner probably had significant prior unattended mental health issues but there are also questions about him being driven to the meeting place where he shot Gabrielle Gifford and the other victims while carrying an automatic weapon with additional magazines to re-load. By several reports, Loughner already had a public profile as a prolific, if incoherent poster on internet forums.

There are several Palin interviews posted on YouTube – as well as satirical impersonations by Tina Fey. It’s indisputably evident that Palin produces incoherent, garbled responses to probing questions from media interviewers. Palin’s responses are so garbled and incoherent that she is verging on impossible to satirise.

Observers on this side of the Atlantic are genuinely puzzled about how she can be taken so seriously in the Republican Party.

News update:

“Loughner took a taxi to the supermarket where the three-term Democrat was holding a meeting to hear the concerns of her constituents”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzV0R37yUbQemX7bwd_b4a9tmHUQ?docId=N0098291294766778747A

@ Conservative cabbie

“Sarcasm”? Is that what you call it? You need to try much much harder. I think you showed yourself up when you messed around with my username. As for Loughner’s alleged leftism, it’s poppycock. Next you’ll be telling us how the Nazis were really socialists/leftists.

@ Suburban tory

You’re the one who needs to keep up. I posted that a couple of days ago. Though you lot seem to be repeating the line about Loughner’s ‘leftism’. I’m really trying hard to keep a straight face while I type this.

@ Conservative Cabbie,

I noticed how you sidestepped this. Anyone would think that you didn’t want to engage but are here to smear.

“Tell me this, why do women like Palin feel it necessary to be pictured holding and firing guns? Is it because the US is a very macho country that regards anything that is seen as characteristically female as ‘inferior’?”

I guess I won’t be getting a reply to this question any time soon.

By the way, I see you have a nice line in tropes.

@136: “Next you’ll be telling us how the Nazis were really socialists/leftists.”

The facts may be unpalatable but the Nazis clearly regarded themselves as “socialists” as well as “nationalists”. Hitler denounced “Bolshevism”, but not “Socialism”. The official party name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).

Note typical “Socialist” objectives in the Party’s “fundamental” 25-point programme or manifesto, launched by Hitler in 1920 and never amended thereafter. The programme contains many basic leftist commitments such as items 13 through 17 which can be typically found also in the manifestos of other European socialist parties then and since:
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm

“The tax department chief of the Association of Industrialists (Reichsgruppe Industrie) emphasized that it was useless to attempt precise comparisons between the new and old tax regulations because the important issue was ‘the new spirit of the reform, the spirit of National Socialism. The principle of the common good precedes the good of the individual stands above everything else. In the interests of the whole nation, everyone has to pay the taxes he owes according to the new tax law.’”
Avraham Barkai: Nazi Economics (Berg Publisher Ltd (1990)) p.183. Mr Barkai is a research fellow at the Institute of German History, Tel Aviv.

@139

Sorry but your sub-Hayekian thesis won’t wash. Trade unions were outlawed and the workers did not control the means of production, distribution and exchange. The Nazis also declared that “democracy and socialism” did not work, hence the need for a ‘new’ system. Hayek’s strawman argument also overlooks the Italian futurists who variously declared themselves to be libertarians and anarchists but were, in reality, deeply nationalistic. Nazism was a marriage between a nationalistic and militaristic ideology and capital.

@140: “Sorry but your sub-Hayekian thesis won’t wash. Trade unions were outlawed and the workers did not control the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

Hayek is neither here nor there. Trade unions were not independent of the state in the Soviet Union and the workers there did not control the means of production, distribution and exchange. The “leftist” credentials of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union are widely recognised but the Soviet Union signed a Friendship Treaty with Nazi Germany on 28 September 1939, and that could only have happened with the approval of Joe Stalin – few claim that he wasn’t “left”:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/gsbound.asp

“The Nazi Party leaders were savvy enough to realise that pure racial anti-semitism would not set the party apart from the pack of racist, anti-semitic, and ultranationalist groups that abounded in post-1918 Germany. Instead, I would suggest, the Nazi success can be attributed largely to the economic proposals found in the party’s programs, which in an uncanny fashion integrated elements of 18th and 19th century nationalist-etatist philosophy with Keynesian economics. Nationalist etatism is an ideology that rejects economic liberalism and promotes the right of the state to intervene in all spheres of life including the economy.” [W Brustein: The Logic of Evil – The Social Origins of the Nazi Party 1925-33 (Yale UP, 1996), p.51]

To all appearances, Lloyd George, Britain’s last Liberal PM, and Hitler got on well when they met at Berchtesgaden in August 1936:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=e_ApfE3Wjxg

On his return, Lloyd George wrote an article for the Daily Express in November 1936:

“I have just returned from a visit to Germany. In so short time one can only form impressions or at least check impressions which years of distant observation through the telescope of the Press and constant inquiry from those who have seen things at a closer range had already made on one’s mind. I have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods – and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country – there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. . .

“What Hitler said at Nuremberg is true. The Germans will resist to the death every invader at their own country, but they have no longer the desire themselves to invade any other land. . .

“The establishment of a German hegemony in Europe which was the aim and dream of the old pre-war militarism, is not even on the horizon of Nazism. …”
http://www.icons-multimedia.com/ClientsArea/HoH/LIBARC/ARCHIVE/Chapters/Stabiliz/Foreign/LloydGeo.html

@141
“Hayek is neither here nor there.”

I beg to differ. I take it you’ve never read The Road to Serfdom?

Sorry but your post does not prove that the Nazis were left wing. There was no commonwealth in Nazi Germany. It remains a smear – as it always will.

Which reminds me, those of you who have the hots for Palin should read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/12/sarah-palin-response-arizona-shooting

@142: “I take it you’ve never read The Road to Serfdom?”

Whether I’ve read the Road to Serfdom or not is irrelevant. I make no reference to Hayek and instead just look at the extent of well-documented evidence for the leftist propensities of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and their followers and admirers. Lloyd George wrote a glowing assessment of Hitler for the press. That cannot be denied.

Sorry, it still cuts no ice with me. It’s still a smear. It’s funny how many right wingers get offended when they’re presented with evidence of their complicity in authoritarian regimes like those of Pinochet and Franco.

And yes, Hayek is relevant because that is where the canard originated.

@144: “Sorry, it still cuts no ice with me. It’s still a smear. It’s funny how many right wingers get offended when they’re presented with evidence of their complicity in authoritarian regimes like those of Pinochet and Franco.”

I’m focused on analysis and the documentary evidence and have been posting for many years that the “right-wing” v “left-wing” labels are meaningless twaddle intended to keep the football-loving proles content. Orwell put it with his usual eloquence:

“Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous, and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.”
George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-four, Part II, chapter 9.
http://www.panarchy.org/orwell/war.1949.html

We might usefully consider Orwell’s characterisation when discussing the increasingly polarised political climate in America and the role of Sarah Palin.

Buddy

Re: American Renaissance

In the interest of fairness and truth should you not have then withdrawn your “smear” when evidence to the contrary was provided?

Admit it you have no proof that Loughner was a conservative. However, as has been pointed out to you we do have testimony from his friends that when they knew him he held left wing views.

Re: Palin

Are you saying that women should not use guns. Should the US Military be a male preserve?

[146] ST – do you want to see the UK’s gun laws relaxed? Do you expect this Government to do so? Do you think a majority Tory government would?

Mike

Fail to see the relevance to your question as we are discussing the US political scene.

However, I will answer your questions.

No.

No.

No.

Will Buddy now provide us if with the information that he has seen that proves Loughner was a Conservative and inspired to kill by “hateful Right Wing Rhetoric”?

Buddyhell

On to your points.

1. Nazism and to a lesser degree fascism defies a left or right pigeon hole. They incorporate elements of both. Fascism incorporates a perverted version of conservative nationalism but it is a statist ideology, hardly something which would appeal to the modern day conservative. It did however appeal to the contemporary progressive. Who of the left or right would see governments role to be “getting the trains to run on time”?

2. Women and guns. Why not? I didn’t realise only men were allowed to use guns. Palin isn’t the only pol photograhed shooting guns. Gabrielle Giffords is a pro 2nd amendment politician.

http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=6152

3. Lougner’s leftism. How can you say it’s poppycock? I’m using the evidence of someone who knew him. What evidence do you have? Like I said, I think Loughner is defined by his mental illness, not by his politics, but there is no evidence that he is a tea partier, a Palin supporter or conservative in any way.

4. My sarcasm. You obviously didn’t read my full comment when I referred to Palin as “hot” or the previous exchange. The point I was making is that I support Palin because I agree with her politics, not because she’s “hot”. She is, but she’s not my type.

Thanks Dave from a right wing Brit in California, a thoughtful piece.

The American political climate is highly charged on all sides and I find that a very healthy and invigorating way of debating. A recent study (sorry no link) comissioned by Congress to find if Cable News was responsible actually found that polarization has increased with political involvement.

To hold Palin or anyone else responsible for this is absurd. Only the local police may be at fault if they could have done more sooner – but that is not clear.

To call Palin “the” figurehead of the right/tea party is also inaccurate. The Big 4 media stars are Bill O Reilly (Fox News / author), Sean Hannity (Fox News / national radio), Glen Beck (Fox News / national radio / author), & Rush Limbaugh (national radio). Others have influence too. Left leaning media and some Democrats have made Palin their Republican Pinata (a Mexican doll full of sweets that children smash open with a bat)

I hear the “Obama is a commie” type stuff, and generally disregard it after giving it a once over. What i think Obama wants to do is the same as what Labour wants to do for Britain, more or less.

Once in a while something terrible like this happens – I don’t believe gun control would have made a difference. The second tragedy was then that some on the American left saw it as an opportunity to advance their agendas.

@ Conservative Cabbie

“Fascism incorporates a perverted version of conservative nationalism but it is a statist ideology, hardly something which would appeal to the modern day conservative”.

I beg to differ, conservatives and fascists have many things in common and this was certainly the case in Francoist Spain which can be best described as reactionary conservative state rather than a fascist one.

“2. Women and guns. Why not? I didn’t realise only men were allowed to use guns. Palin isn’t the only pol photograhed shooting guns. Gabrielle Giffords is a pro 2nd amendment politician”

The US is a macho country. Women who want to get somewhere in the US have to imitate men lest they be seen as ‘soft’. The gun is a phallic symbol and a woman holding a gun for a lot of men is deeply arousing. But Palin has nothing to offer of substance: she isn’t erudite (this was demonstrated by her misuse of the phrase ‘blood libel’) and no amount of sub-macho posturing is going to make up for that.

“3. Lougner’s leftism. How can you say it’s poppycock? I’m using the evidence of someone who knew him. What evidence do you have? Like I said, I think Loughner is defined by his mental illness, not by his politics, but there is no evidence that he is a tea partier, a Palin supporter or conservative in any way”

Easy. No self-respecting left-winger would name Mein Kampf as his ‘favourite’ book. It’s easy to forget (ah, history and memory again) that the Nazis incarcerated and killed socialists and communists. That fact seems to have escaped those who are quick to claim the Nazis were ‘leftists’.

“4. My sarcasm. You obviously didn’t read my full comment when I referred to Palin as “hot” or the previous exchange. The point I was making is that I support Palin because I agree with her politics, not because she’s “hot”. She is, but she’s not my type”

If you say so. Oh and for the record, what are her ‘politics’? I know she loves her guns and that she’s a Christian fundamentalist. She’s also very very right wing.

@ Suburban Tory

“In the interest of fairness and truth should you not have then withdrawn your “smear” when evidence to the contrary was provided?

Admit it you have no proof that Loughner was a conservative. However, as has been pointed out to you we do have testimony from his friends that when they knew him he held left wing views”

Yeah, but on that basis you can’t prove that he was ‘left wing’ either. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

@Bob

“I’m focused on analysis and the documentary evidence and have been posting for many years that the “right-wing” v “left-wing” labels are meaningless twaddle intended to keep the football-loving proles content. Orwell put it with his usual eloquence”

Ah, Orwell. No, so no scholarly work to support your thesis then? The only people to declare the terms left and right to be “useless” are those on the right. I don’t meet any lefties who tell me that left and right are “meaningless”. It’s an attempt to control discourse. Nothing more. Nothing less.

@139

“The facts may be unpalatable but the Nazis clearly regarded themselves as “socialists” as well as “nationalists”. Hitler denounced “Bolshevism”, but not “Socialism”. The official party name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP)”

Which is why they rounded up and imprisoned socialist and communists? Then you make the same mistake that so many others make: you tell us that the name of the party offers proof of the Nazi’s ‘socialism’. Perhaps you would like to consider the following political parties:

1. Vladimir Zhirinovshky’s Liberal Democratic Party is Russia is neither liberal nor democratic but an extreme nationalist party

2. The Communist Party of Moldova is not a communist party but a right wing neoliberal party.

3. The Australian Liberal Party is actually a conservative party.

Your thesis that because the NSDAP used the word socialist is proof that it was a socialist party is flawed.

Priceless?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/palin-'hit-with-dishonesty-bullets-from-.357-magnum-of-unfairness'-201101133427/