What is the definition of civil, and who gets to decide that definition?
Following in the wake of the tragic events of this past week in Arizona, there has been a lot of finger-pointing about what might have been the cause.
First let me say that my prayers go out to all who have been touched either directly or indirectly by the actions of one seriously deranged individual.
That being said, it would seem as if there are some within the political world who have sought to make gains from attaching blame to their political opponents for the actions of the killer.
Immediately after the first reports came in about the shootings, many on the left started labeling the shooter as being a TEA party type. Some went as far as to connect the heinous act to former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. These stories were put forth long before any facts about the gunman, or his reasons for the shootings were known. This was clearly done to get out in front with the story line, so as to convince as many people as possible, that the gunman was some sort of right-wing radical. This has proven to be false. What we now know is that this is nothing more than the murderous actions of a young man with serious mental issues.
And yet we are still witnessing some on the left attempting to make use of the tragedy. Including Pres. Obama. Last night the President spoke at a memorial service for the victims of this terrible event. In general, I have no problem with the President speaking at this memorial. It is not unusual for presidents to speak to the nation, and to express the nation’s feeling about such events.
What I do have a problem with, is the President taking the opportunity of this tragedy, to set forth an agenda. During his remarks, the President called on the nation to strive to move forward in our political debates in a more civil manner. In doing this, the President once again attempted to attach blame for this tragedy to something other than the fact that the killer is a sick individual. The President in calling for a more civil debate, is stating that he believes that the killer was either motivated or inspired by the ongoing political debate in the country. Like many others on the left, it would seem as if the President was saying that this event was caused by either the TEA party, talk radio, or some other radical right-wing entity.
So, what is the definition of “CIVIL”, in respect to our political discussions?
Who gets to decide who is, and what is civil? The President? Maybe a “Civil Discourse Czar”. We have already heard proposals that words like targeting should be a crime when used in relation to a federal official. Even when clearly speaking only about removing said official from office.
Where would this censorship end? First we eliminate the word target. What about the words battle, fight, eliminate, take them out and any number of other words and phrases, that taken out of context, could be seen as being some sort of call for violence.
The man who shot Rep. Gifford and the other victims was not inspired to do so by talk radio or Sarah Palin, he was not motivated to kill because he feels that the country is headed in the wrong direction. This was not a politically motivated action. This was the act of a person who listened to the inner demon within his own heart. He wanted to kill for whatever reason his demented mind had created. If it had not been Rep. Gifford, or the nine-year old little girl or the other victims, then it would have been others at another time. This man was on a course of destruction, not because he wanted the nation to return to its founding principles, but because he is sick.
For anyone on either side of the political aisle, including the President, to use this event for any sort of political gain is beyond disgusting, it is morally vacant.