By JOHN McCALLUM
Editor
“What is government if words don't have meaning?” – Jared Loughner, Dec. 15, 2010.
It's an ironic statement coming from the 22-year-old troubled man who killed six and wounded 14, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, outside a Tucson Safeway about two weeks ago. It's ironic because Loughner's actions have created debate over just that – the meaning of words and potential consequences if used without consideration towards how some might take them.
Understand here that the word “troubled” doesn't go nearly as far as needed in describing Loughner's mental state, of which we are only beginning to learn and may never fully know. We may never know what triggered an individual stuck in what friends called a “nihilistic rut” to graduate from posting murky, rambling screeds about government mind-control conspiracies on YouTube to taking up arms and assassinating innocent people.
But it's clear Loughner was focused on words and their meaning. We shouldn't dismiss that so lightly, nor should we dismiss out of hand our own involvement in using words as well as images.
In the same YouTube video piece Loughner remarked that, “If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem.” The adjective ad hominem means “1. Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, and 2. Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”
Loughner's argument that calling him a terrorist based simply on our feelings or prejudice's towards him or his beliefs is the product of a delusional mind – it doesn't account for the terrorist modus operandi towards violence against those who they may disagree with as resolution to the issue. Indeed, the more Loughner eschewed reality for a controlled dream state, called “lucid dreaming,” it's becoming obvious he no longer understood the differences between the two.
We shouldn't fall into a similar fate when it comes to the discussion about the role of words in our society, particularly when it comes to debates about how we effectively order our affairs, which is the role of government. Making emotional attacks on someone or some group's character rather than a learned intellectual response to positions is the modus operandi in today's society, regardless of the issue.
There are no better witnesses to this than we media types. Can you think of letters to the editor where someone takes issue with an article, editorial or opinion piece but instead of using facts in opposition engages in emotional speculation regarding the author or authors' character and/or imagined motives behind the piece?
I can, several recent ones in fact.
Sarah Palin is right in that this type of language in our discourse has been going on for a long time. The 2010 political season pales in comparison to the vulgar, inflammatory accusations made during the 1828 presidential campaign between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.
But Palin's comments carry the unspoken implication that, in other words, that's just the way the game is played and it won't change.
But why can't it change? Why should we accept this?
The conversation about Tucson and the state of our political discourse must take place. It goes beyond cartoon crosshairs on a website, beyond Sharon Angel's comment of resorting to “Second Amendment remedies” to fix undesired political outcomes and beyond tea partiers holding signs portraying President Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler.
In the end it's about how we treat each other, and it boils down to this – we are a fearful people. We are afraid of change; afraid of unacknowledged ignorance and afraid that by admitting someone else might have a good idea we are weak.
It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Fixing it will take a combined effort. Like making stew, making our American society work will take the sum total of all ingredients.
Words do mean something. We need to take responsibility for our words and hold others accountable for theirs.
It's something the founders of this country understood and would want us to do too.
Reader Comments(0)