"Two events, each more than a century old, instruct us about how we should act in the face of what happened Friday in Newtown, Conn. On March 25, 1911, fire broke out in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan. Because the owners had locked the doors and stairwells, in an effort to prevent theft and unauthorized work breaks, the garment workers were trapped in the fire; 146 of them, almost all young female immigrants, died. In the wake of the disaster, New York politicians -- including future Gov. Al Smith and future Sen. Robert Wagner -- “exploited the tragedy.” How? By helping push through a series of reforms that made New York state a model of workplace safety. Little more than a year later, on April 15, 1912, the unsinkable ocean liner Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, taking 1,522 passengers and crew members to their deaths. After the disaster, regulators and public officials “exploited the tragedy.” How? By insisting that ships carry enough lifeboats for all passengers (the Titanic, operating under then-current rules, had barely enough for half); by insisting that ships man their radios 24 hours a day; by better designs of hulls and bulkheads. A shocking event is exactly the right time to start, or restart, an argument about public policy. … Consider a more recent example. On March 7, 1965, voting rights demonstrators on a march in Alabama from Selma to Montgomery were met by a phalanx of state troopers at the Edmund Pettis Bridge. They met the marchers with fists and billy clubs. A week later, President Lyndon B. Johnson spoke to a joint session of Congress. He made no apologies for “politicizing the tragedy.” Instead, he said:-- Columnist Jeff Greenfield, December 17, 2012, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
“At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Ala.”The speech -- which borrowed the famous assertion that “we shall overcome” -- propelled the Voting Rights Act into reality and effectively ended 100 years of state-sanctioned repression. … Newtown forces us to look at the consequences of decisions -- or indecision -- squarely, unflinchingly. It forces us to ask ourselves, “What do we do in the face of this new evidence?” That is as far from exploitation as you can get."
Comment: Greenfield argues that there is nothing wrong with "politicizing" or "exploiting" a tragedy if doing so simply means responding to that tragedy with policies that address its causes and try to prevent more of the same from happening. That's not to say, however, that Greenfield has the right idea about which policies on guns will achieve the goal of minimizing gun deaths.
***
"We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. … But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. … And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child’s very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won’t -- that we can’t always be there for them. … It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children. This is our first task -- caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? … I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. … We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. … We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"-- President Barack Obama, December 16, 2012, speaking at a prayer vigil held in response to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: But what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to change so as to reduce these tragedies? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
""A pragmatic progressive" political party is the ne plus ultra of American political fantasy. It expresses unarguable values: Progress is what we all want, and all politics should be pragmatic. The question is: Why don’t we have it? Why do we have a conservative movement based on frantic spin and outright mendacity, but no true progressive movement opposing it based on facts?"-- Letters to the editor of The New York Times (by David Berman and Nina Bousk, respectively), published December 16, 2012, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
...
"How about a Common Sense Party? It seems it’s been a long, long time since political parties have evidenced common sense."
Comment: Berman is indulging in the "only my opponent" caricature, saying that Republicans and conservatives (but not Democrats and progressives) resort to "spin" and lies. He also indulges in "pragmatic" rhetoric. Bousk, meanwhile, indulges in "common sense" rhetoric. What positions are common sense? Does anyone decide to take a position that isn't common sense?
***
"[If you're a] college football fan, you're familiar with Chris Ault and Nevada. Obviously it's an offense that he has invented, basically, and it's often been termed the "pistol offense". Well, we apologize for any confusion it may cause today, but, in our small way of showing some respect to the tragedy yesterday, we're not going to be referring to it as the "pistol" offense today. It will be the "Nevada formation", and it is a good one, a well-executed offense, and tough to stop."-- ESPN announcer Bob Wischusen, December 15, 2012, at the New Mexico Bowl, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Ault is the football head coach of the University of Nevada Wolf Pack.
Comment: In deference to an ESPN directive to show respect for the Sandy Hook tragedy, Wischusen was trying to avoid violent rhetoric. Although he avoided the term "pistol", he still wound up using the word "executed". Was this directive necessary, given that violent rhetoric in this context is clearly meant to be metaphorical? Or was such rhetoric inappropriate so close to the tragedy while people were still in shock and mourning?
***
"On Friday, we learned that more than two dozen people were killed when a gunman opened fire in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. … As a nation, we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years. An elementary school in Newtown. A shopping mall in Oregon. A house of worship in Wisconsin. A movie theater in Colorado. Countless street corners in places like Chicago and Philadelphia. Any of these neighborhoods could be our own. So we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this. Regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 15, 2012, during the president's weekly address, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
"A gunman whose name we do not need to memorialize took advantage of our gun control laws to slaughter some 20 children and seven adults in a Newton, Connecticut elementary school. In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman. What a lethal, false security are the Gun Free Zone laws. All of our mass murders in the last 20 years have occurred in Gun Free Zones. The two people murdered a couple of days earlier in the shopping center in Oregon were also in a Gun Free Zone. Hopefully the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the Gun Free Zone laws that are in fact Criminal Safe Zones."-- Executive Director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, December 15, 2012, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: Is this politicizing or exploiting the situation? Or even rooting for failure? I don't think so. It's reasonable to respond to a mass shooting by discussing what policies could help prevent such tragedies (which is not to say that Pratt's ideas about what accomplish that goal are correct). It could, however, be argued that Pratt's discussion of gun policy was "too soon". Also, is it really the case that gun control advocates are complicit in murder? Isn't that demonizing, or at least exaggeration?
***
"The assault weapons ban enacted under President Clinton was deficient and has expired. Mr. Obama talked about the need for “common sense” gun control after the movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colo., and he hinted during the campaign that he might support a new assault weapons ban, presumably if someone else introduced it. Republicans will never do that, because they are mired in an ideology that opposes any gun control."-- New York Times editorial, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: First, this is a distortion (or at least an exaggeration). Republicans do not oppose all gun control whatsoever. In fact, they support many gun control laws, just not as many as Democrats and the editors of The New York Times do. Second, The New York Times editorial page is indulging in "ideologues" rhetoric. Lastly, The New York Times editorial page correctly points out that President Barack Obama earlier indulged in "common sense" rhetoric.
***
"The sickening headline flashed across my computer screen this morning: “Multiple Deaths Reported in Connecticut School.” … Meanwhile, the gun lobby, timid politicians and the Supreme Court continue to aid and abet rampant gun violence that is nothing less than domestic terrorism, carried out with weapons of mass destruction that are too freely owned and carried."-- Author Arnold Grossman, letter to the editor of The New York Times, published December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is demonizing. There are legitimate disagreements about what the best policy on guns is, and on what policies will do the best job of preventing mass killings. It is unfair to describe gun rights advocates as intentionally aiding terrorists.
***
"We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. … As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
REPORTER [unidentified]: Jay, if I could ask about -- in connection with the shootings, yesterday and today, obviously tragic events. Do these raise limiting handgun violence or other gun violence on the President's list of priorities in any way?-- White House briefing with Press Secretary Jay Carney, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
CARNEY: We're still waiting for more information about the incident in Connecticut. As we do, I think it's important on a day like today to view this as I know the President, as a father, does; and I, as a father, and others who are parents certainly do -- which is to feel enormous sympathy for families that were affected and to do everything we can to support state and local law enforcement and to support those who are enduring what appears to be a very tragic event. There is I'm sure -- will be, rather, a day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates, but I don't think today is that day.
Comment: This could be classified as an evasion, as Carney doesn't answer the question about what President Barack Obama's policy on guns is. However, as a timing issue, Carney does make a legitimate point that the discussion of gun policy -- which is a contentious debate that doesn't serve to comfort those hit by the tragedy -- is an inappropriate foray into politics that can be postponed briefly (though not indefinitely).
***
"Even as I was explaining and reacting to this horrible shooting in Newtown, Connecticut -- Maybe, what, 14, 16, 18 children are dead. Some are only four or five years old. Even as I was saying/predicting that the left/the media were trying to figure out how they could blame this on conservatives -- or politicize it, turn it into an event to advance their agenda. As I was saying that, a hostette at MSNBC, Alex Wagner, said, "Hopefully, this shooting will result in political capital to reform gun laws. It is hopefully -- and we say this every single time we cover one of these things. There's gotta be some kind of measurable change, some kind of reaction. One would hope there would be some political capital to reform the way in which we handle gun and gun violence in this country." So they're already calculating. That's what so peeves me about these people. You've got a horrible event here, and they're already looking to politicize it. It's not what it is. It's an opportunity! These people look at stuff like this as an opportunity -- it's sickening -- to advance their agenda or blame conservatives. … the left is already mobilized. As they always will and always do, they try to politicize the event for their advantage, mobilize down their anti-gun highway. … And even as we speak, the Drive-By Media and the Democrats are attempting to politicize the issue to advance their own agenda. In this case, probably an assault on the Second Amendment again. I guarantee you that they are overturning everything they can in their quest to be able to blame this on Republicans. This, to them, is an opportunity. At least to the Democrat media people that are tweeting and Facebooking on this, they are excited about it. Oh, yes, it's a golden opportunity. It's sick."-- Radio pundit Rush Limbaugh, December 14, 2012, referring to remarks made by MSNBC TV pundit Alex Wagner concerning the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: How are Wagner and Democrats politicizing the event? After a shooting like this, is no one allowed to advocate a way to prevent such tragedies? Is anyone who points to the shooting as an argument for more permissive gun laws -- since the shooter would more likely have face armed resistance -- also "politicizing" the tragedy?
***
"We're hearing reports now that up to 20 children may have been shot. It is hopefully -- we say this every single time we cover one of these things -- a line in the sand. There has got to be some kind of measurable change, some kind of reaction. One would hope that there will be some political capital to reform the way in which we handle gun and gun violence in this country."-- TV pundit Alex Wagner, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: Is this politicizing or exploiting the situation? Or even rooting for failure? I don't think so. It's reasonable to respond to a mass shooting by discussing what policies could help prevent such tragedies (which is not to say that Wagner's ideas about what accomplish that goal are correct). It could, however, be argued that Wagner's discussion of gun policy was "too soon".
(The list above is not intended to be a comprehensive record of all relevant examples. Click here for previous edition.)
No comments:
Post a Comment