Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Diagnosing the "Crazy": Jared Loughner? Likely. The Political Discourse of the Far Right? Absolutely.

The only thing surprising (not really) about the Tea Party Republican response to the Tucson massacre is how swiftly its spin-masters and ideology-ministers rush to distance themselves and their party from the fact that their constant drumbeat of violent, paranoid, and evidence-free oratory contributes to a political and psychological climate where suggestible people like Loughner are ready to blow. All Loughner needed was a bit of direction—and the far right is there to offer it. To be clear: it doesn’t matter what Loughner believed—“Left” or “Right.” It’s irrelevant whether he knew there was a Tea Party or an American Renaissance, a Gun Owners of America, a Patriot’s Voice, a Glenn Beck, or a Ku Klux Klan—or even (heading back to the 60’s) a Weather Underground.

What matters is that his apparent anger could be channeled into violence, that he could acquire a gun with which to execute his plan, and that both of these are richly available thanks almost entirely to the far right that dominates our current and profoundly degraded political discourse. The very speed with which the TPR-faithful fell in line behind the “he’s just crazy” pitch itself offers evidence they know two things: (1) the vast majority of our current incarnation of vitriolic, hate-mongering, paranoid speech available on the Internet, through talk radio, and on the FOX Propaganda Station is from the Far Right, and (2) that they’ve got to blame someone else—fast—in order to distract us from this fact. It’s thus doubly ironic that pundits like O’Reilly blame the Left for having the audacity to point out the obvious, namely, that there’s blood on the hands of every pundit who has contributed to the ratcheting up, the dumbing down, and the gross manipulation of the American public through fear.

However disturbed, however the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks, Palins, Malkins, O’Reillys, Brewers, Rand Pauls, or Editor Sachettis fancy themselves psychiatric experts, Jared Loughner’s targeting of Gabriel Giffords was NOT coincidental, NOT unplanned, and NOT irrational. It is, moreover, morally depraved to call Loughner crazy—AND then insist he’s still responsible and should receive the death sentence.

There’s NO conflict between Loughner’s suffering mental illness and his having, however inchoate, political beliefs; he clearly has beliefs about the government, U.S. currency, guns, immigration—and Representative Giffords. To claim that a diagnosis of mental illness exhausts any need for further explanation of why Loughner chose the location, the target, the date, and the weapon he did is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the possibility of contributory factors—tacit admission that there are just such factors.

TPR hypocrisy: when Nidal Hasan opens fire at Ft. Hood, the far right call it “terrorism”—and dismiss the possibility of mental illness in order to score points against Islamic extremists (despite evidence he was acting alone). When Jared Loughner targets a congresswoman, then opens fire on a crowd of bystanders, the far right call it “crazy” to avoid what connects both tragedies: a political climate so toxic, so saturated by half-truths, outright falsehoods, and calls to insurrection that the only wonder is that this doesn’t happen more often.

The daily ravings of Glen Beck are every bit as incoherent, angry, and fact-free as are Jared Loughner’s. Both, for example, focus bizarre attention on U.S. currency (www.2012-doomsday-predictions.com/14690/glenn-beck-the-world-is-dumping-our-dollar). The difference? One commits a horrific crime that ends the life of a nine year old; the other “merely” helps to foment a climate of hysteria—and gets paid millions of dollars to do it.

Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu (585 words)

13 comments:

RevGreg said...

It's amazing that when we want to find something, our research will happily lead us in that direction. I suppose the shrill violence on the far-left falls on deaf ears when it reaches you. I suppose you ignore the daily calls to violence at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos? I suppose you have some sort of elaborate rationalization for Obama using phrase "if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" during campaign speeches? I suppose Ed Schultz on multiple occasions calling for the killing of conservatives on MSNBC is simply an anomoly? Bill Maher stating that Sarah Palin will be "one of the first useless people killed" is just a joke? Eight years of shrill leftist rhetoric during the Bush administration including a movie depicting President Bush being violently assassinated is simply "freedom of expression" and nothing else? The burning, vandalism, and looting during the 2009 G20 meetings in Pittsburgh was simply "freedom of expression"? Buses full of Boy Scouts attacked at the 2008 RNC and people dropping sandbags from overpasses to try to hit bus windshields isn't a concern? The huge amount of leftist violence, violent leftist literature, and outright murders that have occurred since the late 60s are somehow acceptable to you? The methods of communicating their rhetoric may be different but it takes a special sort of cluelessness, or outright self deception, to not see violent rhetoric from both parties. The degree to which one sees it is directly equivalent to the degree to which one looks. My knowledge of Glenn Beck comes mainly from a far-left co-worker of mine (whom I have a quite civil and friendly relationship with) who frequently froths at the mouth about him, I've personally never watched the guy nor do I care what he has to say. I've seen enough of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow to lump them right in the same category and I happily ignore their senseless prattling also…and that you do not include them in your statements is a telling sign that fairness is not your objective in your observations. (continued)

RevGreg said...

Video games, music, cinema, comic books, television…one can find gratuitous violence with no political direction whatsoever. Seriously, on New Year's Day a woman intentionally drove her car into another woman and killed her in a dispute over ice cream…is that the right's fault too? Even though you admit that there isn't shred of proof that Loughner had any specific political ideology, you still believe that from 2,300 miles away and having only the scantest of knowledge acquired you can lay blame on, to no one's surprise, your political opponents. No proof needed, no facts to muddy your analysis. Just 100% pure biased opinion. Congratulations, your are Bloomsburg's leftist equivalent of Glenn Beck et al. If your intent is to point out biased political rhetoric, you can meet your enemy by looking into a mirror.

My take? Elevating isolated acts such as Loughner's or, certainly, Hasan's to mean something more than the actions of a deviant mind serve no purpose. Despite all the violent, hysterical rhetoric spewed by both major parties basically since their inception 300,000,000+ persons (including 60,000,000+ legal firearms owners) chose not do commit any heinous acts last Saturday…or any day before or since. In fact, I have read news accounts of at least 12 persons using legally owned firearms to prevent the commission of violent crimes. Except for a tiny, statistically insignificant percentage the vast, vast majority of Americans will live their lives out never becoming a Jared Loughner or anything even remotely close. ANY actions to curtail civil liberties based on any such events is a tragic mistake and only serves to alienate more persons on the political fringes. What ultimately pushed Loughner to act is basically irrelevant, it is how we respond to his actions that will make the difference. If we respond with political rhetoric such as yours and calls to curtail firearms rights and/or limitations on political speech, we will have taken one more step towards totalitarianism and chaos. If we, rightfully in my opinion, recognize that deviant behavior by a tiny minority is actually normal and even in the complete abandonment of civil liberties we would never be able to prevent such things from happening, we will have taken a step in the direction of political and societal healing.

Wendy Lynne Lee said...

Dear RevGreg,

I would love to see a manifest that even remotely compares to the rantings of Glenn Beck, MIchelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc..on any given day. There is simply nothing on DailyKOS that comes close to a single day on Beck. This isn't a matter of looking and finding. This is a matter of facts. And that quote attributed to Obama is pulled entirely out of context. I have never either seen or heard Schulz call for anything like this. Dude--you're just plain wrong here.The difference between the rantings of Beck (who you profess not to watch--hence can make no claim about whatever) and, say, Maddow is the difference between claims that are made up out of whole cloth, and facts--in that order. I am quite objective here. Yours is the picture of a guy and his gun.

What, in any case, IS your point here? it's clearly not to engage in discussion--your position is clearly a settled one. So--what is it your'e after?

Wendy Lynne Lee said...

With respect to your second post: Your examples are irrelevant--Loughner didn't go after anyone randomly. He went Representative Giffords--specifically. I didn't say that Loughner had no political ideology; I said that it doesn't matter what his ideology is. Quite different. It DOES matter what prompted Loughner to act--as it is only whn we understand this that we can act to prevent tragedies like this in the future. THIS is my motivation in writing. Moreover, I have certainly not argued for the curtailment of any civil liberty. Read my post again. having said that, AZ's gun laws are absurd, and their current potential legislation to allow students to pack heat to their college classrooms is insane.

That you should accuse me of the hate-mongering rightly attributable to Beck,. et. al., shows only that you have a fairly dismal understanding of the difference between a calling out on the basis of fact--which is what I have done--and fear-mongering on the basis of paranoid illogic, Beck's daily ritual. I have called no one a name; you have. I can only assume you say this because it offers comfort in the face of acknowledging the indisputable facts that the toxic political atmosphere in the U.S. IS sponsored by the far right.

I am, however, pleased to see you acknowledge, at least tacitly, that Hasan is not rightly labelled as a terrorist.

Your last argument is a straw. No one's calling for the abandonment of civil liberty qua speech on the basis of Loughner's actions--or even Beck's. Hence the point is moot.

This has been entertaining, but I have courses to prepare for now; students to advise, a semester to get underway.

Cheers!

w

RevGreg said...

Calling out "facts"? The only one who knows Loughner's motivations is Loughner...yet you expound endlessly before allowing him to speak. My purpose hear was to speak reason to an irrational, emotionally based tirade...I should have known that trying to speak to you was an irrational act also.

I'll leave John Green father of Christina Green, the 9-year old shot in the rampage speak sense to you. Even in what must be a terribly emotional moment he speaks reason instead of knee-jerk, reactionary nonsense.

"This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative."

Wendy Lynne Lee said...

Dear RevGreg,

It is interesting that you haven't actually responded to virtually any of my observations. I'll take this as evidence that you can't so respond, or that if you did, it would not go your way. What you do instead is simply repeat in different words your original accusation--that I am wrong to draw a political connection, and that I should settle for the claim that Loughner is just crazy. It is remarkable indeed that you insist that none can know what Loughner's motives are, BUT you think yourself adequately knowledgable to diagnose him as crazy. Or maybe not remarkable--just incoherent.

One thing's certain: you have in no way shown that any of my observations constitute the tirade you assert. If you cannot show a thing, you ought to leave it alone. And if you "should have known" that talking to me was useless, why did you? This says far and away more about you than it does about me. I did not address you--quite the reverse.

Certainly Mr. Loughner's words are very valuable--I agree completely. But they speak not a word to whether jared Loughner's actions included political motivations, or whether the far right has bloods on its hands for ratcheting up the level of vitriol.

Moreover, I have no reason in the world to take Mr. Loughner as an authority on his son's illness--Mr. Loughner--on the evidence so far--didn't do a hell of a lot to help his clearly disturbed son. I get it that this evidence could change--well and good. I hope the failure to get this kid help doesn't include his parents.

So why do YOU feel some need to try to reach me? Why do YOU feel a need to post a picture of yourself with a rifle? If, as YOU say, trying to reach me was "irrational," then perhaps you'll take your own return to reason--and let this go.

RevGreg said...

I love how you continue to twist in the wind on this. No, I have not responded to what you call "observations" because they are not observations, they are biased assumptions you have created to fit your world view.

Of course I state that no one can state what Loughner's motives are but Loughner. I say that because it is incontrovertible, 100% fact.

I have never once stated that Loughner is crazy, I asserted that combined accounts from people who know him showed almost every symptom of a very specific mental illness. That you wish to call that "crazy" is your choice, those of us who actually work in the filed of mental health would call him mentally ill. If you are suggesting that from what you have read that his was NOT mentally, I'd certainly wonder what your basis for that decision would be.

As for your question "Why do YOU feel a need to post a picture of yourself with a rifle"...there are tons of pictures of me with rifles and pistols. Some videos also. All freely available on the internet. My day job is in social services working with violent behavioral disorders. My sidejob is working with a Type 2/Class 7 firearms dealer/manufacturer and doing some firearms training, as well as law enforcement sales. As my Google account is used specifically for the latter, the avatar photo was chosen to reflect what I do...if you infer anything more from my photo, you infer too much. The picture you chose of you looking confused was just as apt (just joking there!)

Not sure why you brought up Loughner's father, I haven't heard anything accept the first statement of sympathy released by his parents and was unaware they'd said much else. Regardless, the parents, even when confronted by Pima Community College, seem to have done nothing to help their son. Unfortunately that is many times the case with mental health issues and I am have been heartened to see some discourse about how mental health problems are so demonized that people often ignore them because of the possible social stigma if other find out they are in therapy. We have a situation locally which is frustrating me to no end which could end up having tragic consequences, yet the authorities who have come into repeated contact with this individual and know that he is unstable have passed up nearly a dozen opportunities to remove him from the streets (money and influence can do wonders, anyone else would have been arrested.)

Why do I respond? Why do you respond to Evy, which is also an irrational act?

RevGreg said...

Quote from one of Loughner's friends:

"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040

Wendy Lynne Lee said...

Dear RevGreg,

No twisting; no wind. That you fail to respond to my arguments and observations is about you, not me.

That you post loads of pictures of yourself with rifles in no way addresses the question WHY you do so. It merely reiterates THAT you do so. THAT you're into guns is clear, but I gather this is your way of making sure we all know your'e a manly man. Whatever.

But you're right about one thing: Responding to you is about as useful as responding to Evy Lysk--not very. And I haven't responded to Ms. Lysk in a very long time.

Loughner may or may not have watched the news. It's entirely irrelevant. No one could live in the violent--gun-toting--culture that we do and not be affected by it. He didn't live in a cave, and on the obvious evidence he had access to and used the Internet. He posted on Youtube--and while his rantings there are not coherent, but they do contain a political element.

On "crazy," my understanding of schizophrenia is pretty good, Mr. RevGreg. I teach an upper division course in philosophy of mind/brain, and recently completed a nearly year long study in philosophy of neuropsychology with a student. I know the "signs," and I also know how easy it is to label. But again, it's irrelevant since there is no reason to exclude Loughner as having political motives--or at a minimum being affected by a vitriolic political climate--on grounds of mental illness. He is not unconscious, and he is clearly not intellectually disabled.

So, if you'd like to respond directly to my arguments, great. Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels here, and I'm not interested in being ridiculed; it's boring.

RevGreg said...

"That you post loads of pictures of yourself with rifles in no way addresses the question WHY you do so. It merely reiterates THAT you do so. THAT you're into guns is clear, but I gather this is your way of making sure we all know your'e a manly man. Whatever."

I'm not sure what part of my working for a firearms manufacturer as a side job you don't get. I am around firearms a great deal of time. I do range officer duties. I do graphic design for the company. I am currently in Las Vegas for the largest firearms tradeshow in the world and after the media Range Day today there are not only pictures but, gasp, videos up. It's our BUSINESS…and photos are advertising and promotion. Just like a professional driver might have an automobile in the picture once in a while, I end up with a firearm there once in a while. Belittling somebody with misapplied Freudian bullshit makes you look petty. Grow up.

"I teach an upper division course in philosophy of mind/brain, and recently completed a nearly year long study in philosophy of neuropsychology with a student."

The difference between classroom and being in the trenches with someone with serious issues is night and day. In the classroom everything fits neat and tidy and you can declare that what you decide will work. I reality, people do what they damned well please and there are setbacks and times when circumstances can literally undo years of work. I've done both…not the same thing.

"So, if you'd like to respond directly to my arguments, great."

You have NO argument. You have situation X "violent rhetoric" and you have situation Y "Loughner's actions"…you have absolutely NO proof that X is causal of Y. None whatsoever. You claim that nobody could be unaffected by X…yet ONLY one person has done Y. You pedantically insist that you are right but without any proof that and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee with me. I respect your position, it would be nice if you respected others and at least listened. No, there likely is no point to this…but that's because you don't want there to be a discussion. You want to insist that your point is 100% infallible despite no causal connections and ample statements to the opposite. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. There's as much PROOF that the flooding in Australia drove him to it as any of the claims you have made.

RevGreg said...

"That you post loads of pictures of yourself with rifles in no way addresses the question WHY you do so. It merely reiterates THAT you do so. THAT you're into guns is clear, but I gather this is your way of making sure we all know your'e a manly man. Whatever."

I'm not sure what part of my working for a firearms manufacturer as a side job you don't get. I am around firearms a great deal of time. I do range officer duties. I do graphic design for the company. I am currently in Las Vegas for the largest firearms tradeshow in the world and after the media Range Day today there are not only pictures but, gasp, videos up. It's our BUSINESS…and photos are advertising and promotion. Just like a professional driver might have an automobile in the picture once in a while, I end up with a firearm there once in a while. Belittling somebody with misapplied Freudian bullshit makes you look petty. Grow up.

"I teach an upper division course in philosophy of mind/brain, and recently completed a nearly year long study in philosophy of neuropsychology with a student."

The difference between classroom and being in the trenches with someone with serious issues is night and day. In the classroom everything fits neat and tidy and you can declare that what you decide will work. I reality, people do what they damned well please and there are setbacks and times when circumstances can literally undo years of work. I've done both…not the same thing.

"So, if you'd like to respond directly to my arguments, great."

You have NO argument. You have situation X "violent rhetoric" and you have situation Y "Loughner's actions"…you have absolutely NO proof that X is causal of Y. None whatsoever. You claim that nobody could be unaffected by X…yet ONLY one person has done Y. You pedantically insist that you are right but without any proof that and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee with me. I respect your position, it would be nice if you respected others and at least listened. No, there likely is no point to this…but that's because you don't want there to be a discussion. You want to insist that your point is 100% infallible despite no causal connections and ample statements to the opposite. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. There's as much PROOF that the flooding in Australia drove him to it as any of the claims you have made.

RevGreg said...

"That you post loads of pictures of yourself with rifles in no way addresses the question WHY you do so. It merely reiterates THAT you do so. THAT you're into guns is clear, but I gather this is your way of making sure we all know your'e a manly man. Whatever."

I'm not sure what part of my working for a firearms manufacturer as a side job you don't get. I am around firearms a great deal of time. I do range officer duties. I do graphic design for the company. I am currently in Las Vegas for the largest firearms tradeshow in the world and after the media Range Day today there are not only pictures but, gasp, videos up. It's our BUSINESS…and photos are advertising and promotion. Just like a professional driver might have an automobile in the picture once in a while, I end up with a firearm there once in a while. Belittling somebody with misapplied Freudian bullshit makes you look petty. Grow up.

"I teach an upper division course in philosophy of mind/brain, and recently completed a nearly year long study in philosophy of neuropsychology with a student."

The difference between classroom and being in the trenches with someone with serious issues is night and day. In the classroom everything fits neat and tidy and you can declare that what you decide will work. I reality, people do what they damned well please and there are setbacks and times when circumstances can literally undo years of work. I've done both…not the same thing.

"So, if you'd like to respond directly to my arguments, great."

You have NO argument. You have situation X "violent rhetoric" and you have situation Y "Loughner's actions"…you have absolutely NO proof that X is causal of Y. None whatsoever. You claim that nobody could be unaffected by X…yet ONLY one person has done Y. You pedantically insist that you are right but without any proof that and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee with me. I respect your position, it would be nice if you respected others and at least listened. No, there likely is no point to this…but that's because you don't want there to be a discussion. You want to insist that your point is 100% infallible despite no causal connections and ample statements to the opposite. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. There's as much PROOF that the flooding in Australia drove him to it as any of the claims you have made.

Wendy Lynne Lee said...

OK, Mr. Gun-Show-Greg,

I'm done here. You exemplify precisely the toxic rhetoric I expose in my letter.

Just for the record: I did not claim that the vitriol of the far right CAUSED Loughner to commit a massacre. I claimed (and still do) that the vitriol primarily sponsored (and in no way equalled on the Left) by the far right encourages a climate where violence becomes more probable.

Violent words do not cause violent actions.

But a rhetorically violent social and political climate that creates anxiety, paranoia, and fear--just like the one that helps YOU sell guns--helps to create the conditions where those already vulnerable to mental illness are more likely to act. If you're the social worker you claim to be, you have no excuse for not knowing this. This makes your sideline occupation that much more reprehensible.

That you should be participating in a practice that puts even more guns into the hands of folks like Loughner--that you should actually be profiting off the fear created by the right-- is something for which you should be ashamed.

I will not respond to you further.