Of Congresswomen and Rhetoric
This post is actually apropos of something. And I've been involved in some pretty fine words with people over it even though I don't really believe there's any real political motivation behind the shooter. And while one hates to sound alarmist and reactionary, here are two salient points in the continuing discourse of the state of rhetoric in US politics:
1) Via Vaughan Bell:
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, .... A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."
For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.
2) Via someone I know:
When you break it down, isn't political rhetoric just a form of advertising? And if the rhetoric has been particularly reliant on violent imagery for the past two years or so, which it has, how silly is it to suggest that nobody bought what they were selling?
1) Via Vaughan Bell:
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, .... A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."
For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.
2) Via someone I know:
When you break it down, isn't political rhetoric just a form of advertising? And if the rhetoric has been particularly reliant on violent imagery for the past two years or so, which it has, how silly is it to suggest that nobody bought what they were selling?