I was at my daughter’s figure skating lesson at the exact time when Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many others were shot in Tucson, some of whom were killed. The notable coincidence associated with this fact is that I had my laptop with me and was working on a forthcoming blog intended to be critical of certain policy positions of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. I did not hear of the news from Tucson until a few hours later, but the near-immediate question that came to mind was whether what occurred was politically motivated. More to the point, was the shooter influenced in any way by the often uncivil tenor surrounding political discussions in general, and the partisan echos of the blogosphere in particular?  It’s a question that makes this relatively new blogger look in the mirror.

Political debate is important. It is the foundation of this country and the only acceptable means to resolve differences between competing interests.  Really, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a heated discussion when both sides are passionate over their position of what’s right for America. In our hearts, we all want to win each and every battle. It matters not whether the topic is healthcare reform, immigration, gun control, or a proposed liquor license for the local Chuck E. Cheese restaurant turned strip club. In our heads, we know we can’t always have our way, but the least we should expect is for our voices to be heard and considered as part of the final compromise.  The implicit message here is respect.  We want it for ourselves and our beliefs, and we easily forget the other side is looking for, and deserves, the exact same thing.

It (almost) goes without saying that any explicit or implied threats on the life of any public official, or for that matter, any member of the opposition viewpoint, cross the line and should be strongly and swiftly rebuked.  Short of that extreme, is there anything else that should be considered out of bounds?   In the abstract, it is easy to say that any debate must be respectful, and that criticism should not be directed at the person, but rather at their position on the topic at hand. In the real world, the practical question of whether someone standing up and shouting at a public meeting is contributing to the debate or disrupting the conversation is colored by personal tolerances and opinions. What I think is acceptable and productive does not necessarily align with what you think is acceptable and productive, even if we otherwise share similar ideologies. 

A bad situation is made worse when the actual facts of any given issue are clouded by the rhetoric that is too readily accepted by the public as truth. No politician ever lies. Or rather, if you look closely enough, there is usually at least some small shred of truth associated with what comes from the mouth of any politician. But this shred is deliberately pulled and stretched until it is no longer recognizable in the context of the original issue, and for the sole purpose of confusing the voting public.  Once we get to the point where we are arguing over talking points that have no actual relevance to the issue at hand, when we are no longer having an informed discussion, we might as well be starving dogs fighting over a scrap of meat.  Too often, that is how it appears.

We may never know what single or series of multiple circumstances led to what occurred in Tucson.  I would put forth that knowing the actual cause doesn’t matter. We don’t need to distribute the blame for what occurred as much as we need to share in the responsibility for making things better.  This is the choice to be made.  I often tell my children that I don’t care who was responsible for whatever latest transgression of our household rules.  All I care about is who is going to step up and fix this situation?  I look to the politicians and anyone with a voice in today’s society for an answer.  I also direct this question at those who unwittingly elect their government representatives on the basis of rhetoric, rather than substance.  Anyone who thinks it’s someone else’s responsibility to fix this situation needs to look in the mirror.