The editors of the Wall Street Journal respond to the shooting responsibly as well:
Politically motivated attempts at mass murder aren’t common but they do happen and too often they’re exploited for partisan ends. The good news is that on Wednesday most political leaders rose to higher ground.
President Trump offered gracious condolences to the wounded, praise for the officers, and a call to national unity. Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi united to denounce the attack, and Mr. Sanders disavowed and denounced Hodgkinson. Mr. Ryan said the baseball game will go on as scheduled—to a thunderous ovation.
These are divisive political times, when verbal abuse and physical harassment are all too frequent against political opponents. The duty of political leaders and the rest of us is to keep the divisions in the perspective of our shared values of free debate and democratic consent. One way to contribute to a better political climate would be to stop claiming as a reflex that victory by the opposing party is illegitimate, and another would be to stop portraying political assassination as entertainment.
This places them in contrast with the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post who did not.
Well, let’s just put that last line in context. There was no pushback from the WSJ, in fact as I recall they joined the effort, when Clinton was delegitimized for not taking over 50% of the vote when he was first elected. Little pushback when attempts were made to make Obama illegitimate by claiming he was from Kenya. Then, since I am assuming they are referring to Griffin, we should remember Ted Nugent who talked about killing Obama multiple times. Guess what? He got invited to the White House to spend an evening with Trump and get his picture taken. Any editorials saying that Trump should have told Nugent it would be inappropriate to invite such a divisive figure who threatened his predecessor? Nope, not that I recall.
So, the actual words written by the WSJ are correct. Very well written. The problem is that they only mean them right now, because a member of their team got shot, and a member of their team is POTUS. Whenever a Democrat is POTUS again they will go back to ignoring the behaviors they now criticize.
Steve
From a behavioral standpoint the time to criticize a behavior is when it occurs not years after. In fact it’s more effective to praise good behavior than to complain about bad behavior.
Maybe so, but the NYT ran with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting being a result of political rhetoric when Loughner was obviously a psychological mess. Even liberal journalists are going after them for that one,
The larger damaging rhetoric is this prevailing ammosexuals’ “Second Amendment Solutions” theme. Our President joked about that one during the campaign in regard to Clinton.
As I’ve said before, I own two firearms—both long guns, family heirlooms, that haven’t been discharged in living memory. I have no particularly fondness for firearms and wouldn’t oppose tougher gun control laws.
However, I think that there needs to be some realistic acknowledgement that no level of gun control that would pass constitutional muster would have much effect on the problems we actually have. I could explain in detail why that is but you can probably do that yourself. Such laws might reduce the number of successful suicides but that’s changing the subject.
There are much more narrowly tailored reforms that might actually help but the sacred cows they gore belong to different groups. Ultimately, it comes down to what your priorities are. Do you want to curtail gun violence or do you want to injure your political opponents?
My concern is not gun control. I know a lot of responsible gun owners and I agree with you. Heck, I spent Christmas Eve with a family in which the men all got Glocks as gifts. (They were smart enough not to give them to the women.) My concern is the yahoos who run around talking about “Second Amendment Solutions.”
I don’t like the violence of the left, either. None of it is helping.
But what can you do about rhetoric except ask people to use good judgment? I ain’t up for abridging too many First Amendment rights.
That brings up another factor I wish people recognized. There are people who are as serious about Second Amendment rights as supporters of the First Amendment are about those rights. The Bill of Rights is not listed in order of priority.
I haven’t been over to OTB yet, but I’m sure it’s full of introspection and serious thought….
Anyway, I think the sad reality is that ideologues and partisans will play this in whatever way that benefits them or their positions the most and this is no different. The progressives I know on Facebook are full of chickens-come-home-to-roost schadenfreude while the conservatives say this proves what they’ve said about the left for a long time.
I think one dynamic that is different here is how the DC establishment came together in reaction to this, unlike other shootings that didn’t directly involve them. This is because the establishment trumps partisanship in the hierarchy and they see this as a clear politically motivated attack on the establishment from the unwashed fringe. The WSJ is one mouthpiece for the beltway establishment, so I’m not surprised the would take this tone.
More importantly though, we should consider if this a harbinger of what is to come? As time goes by I get the sense that, since the end of the Cold War, we’ve been in our own Belle Epoque and, like that period, we are collectively unaware of how close to the knife edge we actually are.
Yes, that was my immediate reaction as well. I began writing a post with the title “Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You” but thought better of it and wrote what I did write instead.
I was just on Facebook. One of my real-life friends had put up a post about Steve Scalise’s condition. Someone else said they were praying for him. I noted that they shouldn’t leave Matt Mika out of their prayers.
The friend took the opportunity to go on a diatribe against the Democrats, even saying that the last administration had directly encouraged the murder of law officers. That Democrats are trying to destroy America.
Me, I just mentioned the obscure guy.
The problem with gun control is that none of their proposals would actually prevent these shootings. The proposals that might or would prevent these shootings are both politically unpopular and unconstitutional. I don’t understand why the gun control movement has not organized itself like successful movements in the past – notably the civil rights movement and the temperance movement. Their current methods are, if anything, counterproductive.
Just to restate my position, I’m ambivalent about guns. I’ve owned many over the years and for a time it was a serious hobby, but I currently do not own any (I sold the last of them prior to moving into the motorhome). If a majority of Americans supported a repeal of the 2nd amendment I would probably support repeal. The gun control movement doesn’t appear willing to do the work to change the minds necessary to make that happen, so I expect the status quo for a long time to come.
Right: easy access to guns is less to blame for this than a production of Julius Caesar , that notorious pro-assassination action play. Or maybe it was the fact that descriptions of Republican attempts to take away health insurance for 23 million people in exchange for a tax cut is enough to make sane people furious. Or maybe it was the constant drumbeat of news about the president either being a criminal or a total fucking retard.
We should just condemn everything that doesn’t upset the type of person who doesn’t mind that Steve Scalise likes to hang with David Duke. Actually let’s all come together like we did after 9/11. Where’s Andrew Sullivan? He can unify everybody just like when he told us about fifth columns on the coast and how Susan Sontag was on the other side because she tried to envision why someone might be a terrorist. That worked wonders we are still reaping to this very day…
“In fact it’s more effective to praise good behavior than to complain about bad behavior.”
It is far more honest to recognize that some good behaviors are self-serving. If the WSJ had a consistent record saying these same kinds of things in the past, they would be more believable. Maybe this is truly their “come to Jesus moment”? Nah.
Steve
Talk about incendiary.
No need to go to OTB and check out Andys supposition. Modulo lost his way and wound up here………
Hysterical that OTB is somehow this far-left Weather Underground cell of craziness. It’s run by a right-leaning libertarian and a Republican, and the commentariat is a collection of educated moderates who have equity.
And it’s far too threatening and liberal for Andy and Guarneri…
MM,
My issue with the OTB comment section is that it’s the same arguments repeated over and over by largely the same people. There are also a couple of right-wing trolls which the left-wingers (who constitute the bulk of the comment section regulars) can’t seem to ignore which results in “debates” that are largely pointless. The biggest problem is that points are rarely taken on their merits and there is way too much use of ad hominem. Several regulars there are on my blacklist because of their dishonest characterizations and so on the rare occasions I do comment, I ignore their responses.
My issue with with OTB itself is that it is very much inside the beltway in terms of its viewpoint and analysis. They should probably change the name to Doug Mataconis and Friends since he does the vast majority of posts. It doesn’t help that the site itself is a resource hog and sucks to read on mobile devices.
So no, it’s not threatening at all – it’s simply a waste of time in most cases. It’s still a feed in my reader, but I rarely read past the headline and the first couple of paragraphs anymore.