Rhetorical Refuse

Guy de Lusignan: "Give me a war."
Reynald: "That is what I do."
--Kingdom of Heaven

The sad Arizona shootings find opponents of freedom once again seeking to exploit a tragedy for political gain. Over the past few days, the logic has unfolded on a predictably twisted path. First came proposals that the shooter had Tea Party ties, since such a linkage conveniently fits Leftist claims that those associated with the Tea Party have violent underpinnings.

But subsequent media frenzy to uncover 'the truth' revealed no direct Tea Party ties. So the thesis drifted toward the supposedly 'harsh rhetoric' of Republican politicians that must have indirectly motivated a sympathetic gunman into action.

Then information surfaced that the alleged shooter had a long record of unstable behavior, including the issuance of death threats to various officials, and appeared to favor books by Marx and Hitler. So the party line shifted once more, this time suggesting that harsh political rhetoric, primarily spewed by Republicans, helped compel an unstable individiual into irrational action.

An all-too-predictable conclusion is that, because of the 'obvious' connection between inflammatory rhetoric presumably present in the environment and the perp's actions, that the environment needs to be more carefully controlled--perhaps even w/ government 'assistance.' By doing so, we can avoid offending those with 'delicate sensibilities' who are capable of unleashing a string of irrational violence at the drop of a hat.

That tortured thought process barely registers on the scale of reason. Precisely what constitutes 'inflammatory rhetoric' is an obvious issue. What is perceived as violent or inflammatory by one person may be altogether non-combustable to another. For example, gun imagery might motivate threatening feelings for some while sparking feelings of safety for others.

It would then need to be shown that the perpetrator was exposed to the rhetoric and interpreted it in a manner consistent with potential for violent response.

Finally, even if there was agreement on what constitutes inflammatory rhetoric and that the perpetrator was exposed to it and interpreted it in violent context, proponents of this theory would have to establish a decisive connection to action. In the Arizona case, no empirical evidence of such a linkage has been produced. Nor will it--because there can be no such evidence. Social or suggestive pressures emanating from the environment do not directly affect human behavior. Between environmental pressures and human action is personal choice. Even in situations where an environment may be 'loud' with suggestive pressure, an individual must choose whether to bend to that pressure.

Which brings us to an important, perhaps the most important, way that we differ from the rest of the animal kingdom. Creatures lower in the food chain instinctively react to environmental stimuli. Stimulus->thoughtless response. Humans, on the other hand, possess capacity for self-awareness. We can interpret a situation, exercise judgment, and choose our response. Potential stimulus->judgment->thoughtful reponse (which may include no response at all).

Stated another way, social pressures can not move our behavior unless we allow them to do so.

From a spiritual standpoint, many believe that the human qualities of self-awareness and judgment are central to how our Creator will hold us accountable for our behavior here on Earth.

Meanwhile, Progressives are trotting out proposals that resemble those offered in past situations with tragic or crisis character. These proposals aim at restricting freedom--in this case primarily First and, of course, Second Amendment freedoms--in the name of security. We have noted it before: security is not a right. Whereas speech and self-defense are rights with which we are born--and rights that the Constitution was designed to protect.

Indeed, for those who value freedom highly, calls for more government power and control constitute perhaps the ultimate expression of violent, inflammatory rhetoric.