In the past decade, a new generation of the Republican Party has brought an increasingly dogmatic and pugilistic brand of conservatism to mainstream political discourse. In the wake of Jared Loughner’s murderous rampage in Tucson, Ariz., including the maiming of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the civility in American politics is at the forefront of media discourse. Although Loughner’s personal motivations for this crime should not and cannot be taken as representative of any wing of modern politics, this tragic incident is an opportunity for our nation to examine the latent violence of conservative political discourse.
This incident must reignite the debate over the safety of widespread gun availability, a topic that has become one of the most dearly held cultural identifications of conservatives. Despite the shock and outrage that many gun advocates have expressed in the wake of this event, those who deem it acceptable for a man with documented mental instability to obtain guns and ammunition without barriers at retailers such as Wal-Mart should not be surprised when this right is actually utilized. It is a tragic commentary among Republicans that the gun has become one of their most prized symbols of freedom.
Sarah Palin was not responsible for Loughner’s actions by posting an image of her district among others in the crosshairs of a gun on her website, but this image brings to light her party’s culture of implicit violence. In another example, former Nevada Tea Party senatorial candidate Sharron Angle suggested ÏSecond Amendment remediesÓ against Harry Reid. Conservatives increasingly use the Second Amendment to keep rhetoric that continues to surpass the boundaries of civility within the bounds of legality. It is unfortunate that these problems cannot be discussed unless brought to light by a tragedy such as the one in Tucson.
This shooting was not a Ïwake up callÓ as the news media has described it. The wake up call was when members of the Tea Party started bringing guns to political rallies. This tragedy was a brutal act of senseless violence that deserves grievance and reflection on its own. However, we cannot afford to ignore our country’s political climate, which is increasingly tolerant towards those who designate political opponents as enemies using outlandish slurs, invoking Nazism and Communism and summon the tools of violence as their cultural icons.
Dan Hanson is a contributor for the Voice. He can be reached for comment at DHanson12@wooster.edu.