When terror strikes America, who is to blame?

Who should hold the blame for the recent attack in Tucson, Arizona?

Should the shooter be the only one held morally responsible? Should public figures who have used vitriolic language or imagery be at least partially blamed, as well? Or should society at large hold the blame for producing such a violent individual?

A columnist, a guest columnist, and two members of the public respond.

SARAH?
The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history was Al Qaeda’s strike on Sept. 11, 2001, but during the last two years, terrorist attacks in America, which have led to the death of Americans, have been by many non-Muslim, “home-grown” terrorists. The shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., the plane flown into the IRS building and now the shooting at Congresswoman Gifford’s rally.

In the first two cases, the terrorists were said to have been influenced by Fox News, as well as other right wing media outlets that use fear and sensationalism to increase their ratings and the impact of their stories.

Many on the right, even mainstream Republicans holding national office, have increased the volume of paranoia and hatred in our politics by calling their opponents Socialists and Fascists, by making hysterical claims about “death panels” and by calling into question the Christian faith and citizenship of the President.

Glenn Beck regularly warns his viewers that the government and the Democrats are going to take away their liberties and Sarah Palin frequently uses ballistic metaphors such as “reload.”

While this strategy has been electorally successful, I believe it has also been a factor in the rise of domestic terrorism in America.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin may disavow violence, but their words are so vitriolic that it is only logical that a small slice of listeners prone to violence will draw their own conclusions.

The district of the recently attacked Arizona congresswoman was one of the seats over which Sarah Palin’s website placed a sniper-sight on a map of competitive congressional races. The irony is unfortunate, but not unpredictable.

A crazed gun man is responsible for the shooting of the congresswoman; the legal blame lies at his feet.

However, politicians and media figures who trade in sensationalism and borderline-violent rhetoric are morally culpable as well.

— Jonah Schmiechen & Jamie Schmiechen

SHOOTER?
During the past few days, everyone from Adolf Hitler to Sarah Palin (although, to some people, there is no difference between the two) has been blamed for the horrific shooting in Arizona. Reports say suspect Jared Laughner’s Myspace page cited “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifest” as his favorite books.

How can one be both a Nazi (state control) AND a Communist (control by the people)? But I digress.

However, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck have also been cited as influences on the suspect — that their “vitriolic” and “violent” messages drove the suspect to kill a Democrat to “take his country back.”

Let’s stop and look at this for a minute.

The suspected shooter was a devoted Tea Party member, loved Hitler and was a Communist?

Now, I’m no political science major, but a few of those ideals seem diametrically opposed to each other. 

So I propose a third person is to blame: the person who actually carried out the attack.

How about we blame the man who bought the gun and pulled the trigger?

I know this concept of personal responsibility is completely foreign to Americans (I mean, it’s not like our founders based our government on it or anything), but we should use this idea.

I listen to Beck and Palin on an almost daily basis, and somehow I’ve never felt motivated by these people to go on a killing spree.

I’ve read “The Communist Manifesto” and watched MSNBC, and yet those views have not caused me to attempt violent overthrow of the government.

So instead of blaming everyone else for this tragedy, let’s blame the person who actually committed it.

Yes, he may have been a troubled young man, and all of these ideals may have influenced him, but only the shooter is actually responsible for his actions.

— Ashley Freije

SOCIETY?
Jon Stewart spent the first section of his show Monday evening calling for a stop to the battles of blame surrounding the tragedy in Tucson, Ariz.

He argued against those who pointed a brazen finger at the pundits whose speech and scenarios arguably influenced and enabled the motivations found in Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter.

The problem with Stewart’s message was its consternation with finding a root for a societal problem.

The murders that took place this past weekend in Tucson were seemingly politically motivated, and to deny that the U.S. espouses a culture of political violence, even if only in oratory, is to deny the disgusting reality which we are faced with today — it is to ignore the collective responsibility demanded by modern society in order to uphold the oppressed.

Perhaps Loughner’s mental abilities are different from those of the normative human being, and perhaps his relationship with sanity will hold a major place in his trial.

But it is much easier to dismiss the ramblings of a young white man as insanity than it is to acknowledge that we as Americans live in a culture that enables violence as a reasonable solution to disagreements.

Stewart’s words reinforced our common unwillingness to accept the responsibilities of free speech, especially in relationship with what is acknowledged by other parts of the world as hate speech.

This shooting is a symptom of a disease we need to eradicate.

Members of Congress are advocating for the introduction of laws that will clamp down on those who use violent rhetoric in relationship with members of the U.S. government. This is not a solution. It is merely a false blanket of comfort from the harsh reality of our First Amendment rights.

Its placement of violent remarks against the government in a category of seriousness beyond that of the general public displays a touch of elitism that will only work in opposition to the radical equality the First Amendment allows. Reactionary laws are no solution to this problem. They are as good as ignoring the problem altogether.

What Americans need is an understanding of the power of their own words. This is a movement that does more than lay blame on certain individuals whose words feed the culture of violence in the U.S.

It demands a root understanding of words as the ultimate political tool and cements their balanced relationship with physical action.    

America needs to radically alter its culture of apathy toward those who openly regard violence as an option for fixing socio-political problems.

Americans need to accept responsibility for their culture, which does not educate individuals to use their word-given power in ways that can empower society instead of just single individuals.

Americans need to see that they willingly allow the words of a few to represent the concerns of millions. Americans need to stand up, turn off the “news” and march in the streets for the understanding and responsibility word-given freedom demands.

— Stephen Hammoor