THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ARIZONA

It is my observation that the radical right is willing to be radical, loud and zealous. And they don’t care who hears and they don’t care about the ramifications. Sorry, Congresswoman Giffords.

Whatever you call the process – political correctness, limited debate – it stinks. What it amounts to is: those who are willing to be mean and loud and obnoxiously adamant are heard, and then when the progressive left attempts to counter, the right plays the ‘civil discourse’ card.

That’s a lot like the old joke about the response to the question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” There is no good answer because if you say ‘no’ you’re considered a wife-beater. If you say ‘yes’ you’re considered a wife-beater. It’s a lose-lose proposition, where you’re set up to be victimized by language.

The radical right is using that same game.

There’s a vicious, surreal shooting in Phoenix and the first response of the radical right is, “You can’t use this opportunity to politicize the discussion over gun control. You can’t decry the vicious politics of hatred and putting crosshairs over candidate’s homes. Now is the time for quiet, civil discourse, not finger-pointing, hatred, or blaming.”

THE PROBLEM IS, WHY WASN’T IT THAT TIME, JUST MOMENTS AGO?

Why is it ONLY the time for disciplined rhetoric, when some ‘elephant in the room’ event makes it painfully clear that we need to have this discussion?

The reason that’s the only time that point gets evoked is that only the radical right is willing to say anything (target, reload, etc.) and do anything (point target crosshairs, call names) to make its case and to advance its agenda, civility and decency be damned.

I’m a progressive who’s tired of playing by those rules.

Did the crosshairs posted by a nationally known Tea-Partier point to target a potential political enemy and encourage a madman with a gun to act on political hatred and rhetoric?

I don’t care. The posting and the hateful rhetoric are wrong, and it seems the only time the political left has the gumption to complain about it is in the wake of a tragedy like the one in Phoenix. And the immediate response from the political right is, not right now, it would be insensitive to talk about that hatred and those issues just now.

How about this? If logic is logic and reason is reason, then the moments of tragedy and the cool, clear moments of lucidity should show just the same results, if we can be honest and fair.

So what do we need to assess when we’re trying to be honest and fair about responsibility and results of the dialogue between the left and the right just now?

Consider: who would support the use of violence, who would support the use of a gun, who would support the worst and most inappropriate actions in dealing with political opponents.

The radical right champions throwing illegal immigrants out of the country; the radical left wants to find a way to incorporate and give amnesty. The radical right is looking out for individual ownership and espouses the concept of the primacy of the individual; the radical left wants to look out for everyone, even if it means socialized medicine and economic safety net. The radical right wants to limit civil rights to persons based on sexual orientation; the radical left wants an inclusive legal determination, even if it undermines a cherished, primarily religious designation of relationships.

Really is there no one brave enough or honest enough to say it???

Which group is someone listening to and hearing the implicit instruction to pick up a gun and commit violence? Come on, folks! Be real. Unless we’re kidding ourselves…

It’s the me-first, money hungry, elitist, right that has espoused the positions that foster hatred.

LET’S BE HONEST.

If you say the leftist positions are bad for America, you might be right. They might be bad for an America whose primary goal is status quo, white, male, wealthy, hetero, upper-class supremacy.

The leftist positions might be bad for an America whose goals include war without end in the middle east, corporate profiteering and the unholy greed of the uber-rich.

The leftist positions might be bad for an America that needs a social underclass for sociological and psychological hubris and posturing.

But saying you should give up part of what you have, or redistribute wealth doesn’t generally provoke someone to pick up a gun like saying you need to protect your wealth will.

Saying you need to offer jobs and educational opportunities to illegal immigrants won’t provoke someone to pick up a gun the way that saying you have to fight to protect your job will.

Saying that the next person’s sexual orientation and way of life or religion is every bit as valid as yours won’t provoke someone to pick up a gun nearly as quickly as saying that the next person’s sexual orientation, way of life and religion is a ‘threat’ to you and your way of life.

That's the politics and rhetoric of fear. And now – how many times have you heard exactly those arguments and talking points, expressed in exactly those terms?

Yet now - now that someone has acted out on the quietly pervasive and oft-repeated admonishments to take control and act to protect our financial, personal and civil interests – now, we’re encouraged to ratchet back the rhetoric and try to regain civility.

I think back to the 1970 Kent State shootings and I also think back to the archetypal image of the hippie putting the flower in the barrel of the National Guardsman’s rifle.

And then I consider from our 40 years in the future, armchair vantage point who likely was responsible for the killings at Kent State. The mindless hippie flower child… peace-nik who wanted some obscene level of equality? Or the right wing status quo that disapproved of the goofy ‘give away America’ egalitarian mentality?

It’s time that we started to couch our political discourse in philosophical tones and tenets.

Who is advocating an America that our founding fathers would have supported?

Who is advocating an America that is decent, caring and (if you desire that kind of thing) Christian in its behavior?

Who is advocating a protective, protectionist, acquiring, aggressive, accumulating, prideful, and self-absorbed nation, willing to fight and kill to maintain that hubris, superiority and status quo?

Really, really, really…?

At this particular moment in history, as rhetoric and violence heat up, are we really going to dole equal blame to the stupid ‘give away the farm’ liberal and the ‘fight to preserve what you own’ conservative?

Which philosophy do you think is more likely to put a gun in the hands of the next assassin?