Tucson, Two Days Later

Some events affect our collective consciousness so deeply that time itself seems to slow down. The shootings of 19 people in Tucson Saturday morning is one such event. Millions of Americans are trying to divine some meaning from this tragedy; I'm one of them.

At this point, I confess I don't know what the consequences of the assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will prove to be. What I do know, however, is that our political culture may be poised to experience a major change in tone.

If so, a lone gunman in Arizona may have, ironically, accomplished what no one else has been able to, and that is to lower the temperature of the debate over public issues in this country. As more information emerges, a fairly rational discussion appears to be emerging around some of the key issues:

* access to guns by mentally disturbed people,
* access to health care for mentally troubled people;
* the effects of highly charged political rhetoric and name-calling on civil debate;
* the personal impacts of this type of vitriol on our political leaders and their families;
* the damage to  our society as a whole that occurs when politicians demonize each other;
* the damage that remains when not enough calm, rational voices rise to lead these debates.

***

That the Congresswoman survives, after being shot through her brain, is a miracle that may itself help light our way as a people struggling with these troubling issues. As it happens, much of the reading I've been doing lately not only helps illuminate how remarkable her survival would be, if she pulls through, but also what likely awaits her, and those who love her, in the future.

Antonio Damasio began his treatise, Descartes' Error, by recounting the famous case of Phineas Gage, the nineteenth century man who survived after a metal rod passed through his brain in much the way that bullet passed through Rep. Giffords'. Gage made a remarkable recovery in every way but one; his personality changed completely, transforming what had been a successful, well-adapted man into a self-destructive person doomed to utter failure and a tragic, early death.

The surgeons attending Ms. Giffords believe that the path of the bullet through her brain did not destroy any of the known centers of control over our intellectual, physical, or emotional nature. But the truth is we don't know very much yet about how the brain involves itself in regulating our feelings, our emotional makeup, and the way our feelings get expressed to others.

If the Congresswoman recovers, it will not be apparent for quite some time whether her personality -- her essential nature -- has changed. Scientists don't know, doctors don't know, nobody knows.

***

The two other (former) Democratic members of Congress from Arizona who were "targeted" by Sarah Palin's operation for their support for the health care reform bill have spoken out about the effects her political attacks had on them and their families. Shushannah Walshe has an article in The Daily Beast that is worth a read on this subject.


Perhaps what is most poignant is what one of the former representatives says about being relatively inured to campaign rhetoric herself, but forgetting how much pain it could cause her family members, who of course had not chosen to be public figures or to have to worry about their (mother, in this case) after Palin's ads appeared.


The other targeted candidate had a more personal reaction, and talks about feeling "dehumanized" by the experience, about receiving death threats, and having to eventually stop meeting with constituents in town meetings because all he was greeted with was the shouts from those who differed with his position on health reform.



Palin herself has responded to critics today in an email to Glenn Beck, saying, “I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence." An aide says they never intended for the targets to be taken as "gun sights" and never imagined someone might consider them as "violent" in tone.


It is to be expected that all sides will eventually try to exploit the tragedy to push their own agendas; that's the way politics seems to work. But what I hope may tentatively fare better would be the manner in which they continue their endless debates.


Demonizing opponents just because they hold a different position on some issue like health care reform is the type of escalation of tension that obfuscates debate and the evolution of public policy.  It's not democracy, but mob politics, always dangerous, and sometimes fatal. Personally, I cannot stand the rants that are common on Fox News or MSNBC. That one is from the right and the other from the left simply illustrates that neither side has a monopoly on bad taste or stupidity.

If you only watch one of these channels, you are poisoning yourself with your own Kool-Aid. But, frankly, I'd advocate boycotting both if you wish to develop your own unique perspective on the issues of our time. There are plenty of other channels of news that is delivered much more impartially, and effectively where you can accomplish this goal.  (It's called journalism.)


But these vicious personal attacks, on Fox and MSNBC, whether they focus on Obama or Palin or someone else in the public sphere, illuminate nothing useful to those actually interested in figuring out what position to take on complex issues like health care reform. I suspect that the great majority of us find some parts of the bill that was passed useful, perhaps even essential, and other parts useless, perhaps even harmful. But to denounce the entire effort as some sort of evil conspiracy is the product of sick minds; anyone who has struggled with our current health care and health insurance system knows how badly reform is needed.


Name-calling, hate speech, incitements to violent rhetoric if not outright violence itself is of no help whatsoever to the rational citizen who cares enough to try to make sense of it all. It only turns us away from getting involved at all, which is the worst thing that could ever happen to a democracy.


You know, I figured out a long time ago that just because you can say something inflammatory doesn't mean you should. Journalists learn this the hard way, by making mistakes. But we also are forced by our profession to listen carefully to all credible sources and therefore all sides of an issue. We are, as a group, far more about listening than talking.


But when we talk, we are as likely to get into trouble as the next person. Language is a powerful tool with all sorts of hidden hazards. Speaking (or writing) in anger is dangerous and self-destructive. It's hard to take back your words once the relationship between two people has begun to fray.


At some point, further discussion only makes everything worse. You reach that awful moment when there simply is nothing left to say -- and of course I mean this in our private lives every bit as much in our public lives.


In the end, all that remains is deathly silence. And that, for any feeling human being, is the cruelest fate of all.


-30-