Tucson and Oklahoma City

There are several reasons why Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996 after his party’s electoral comeuppance in 1994: The Republican candidate was outspent and inept; the economy was booming; Clinton had, albeit on the third try, signed a popular welfare reform bill; Congressional Republicans got blamed for a brief government shutdown; Ross Perot siphoned off right-of-center populist votes. Far in the rear of those factors was Mr. Clinton’s success in linking mass murderer Timothy McVeigh to the political Right. If the Oklahoma City bombing had never happened, all else would almost certainly have remained the same, and Clinton would have won by about the same margin. The notion that Oklahoma City was a major turning point is a myth fostered by the human desire to trace large events to spectacular causes.

McVeigh’s madness wasn’t, however, inconsequential, for it destroyed all sympathy for the “militia movement”, with which he was loosely connected. Before Oklahoma City, some conservative legislators treated the militia types as part of their natural constituency. In its aftermath, the movement was thoroughly disowned and vanished into a well-deserved obscurity.

The militias’ violence was almost entirely play acting, but the act was legitimately scary and should never have been tolerated. To the extent that Bill Clinton’s rhetoric – much of it over top (oops – sorry, mustn’t use military metaphors) – helped make the militias unacceptable, he performed a valuable service.

The shriekingly obvious differences between 1995 and Saturday’s atrocity are, first, that Timothy McVeigh hung out now and then with the militias while Jared Loughner has no visible connection with the Tea Party or any other coherent point of view and, second, that the vilified Tea Party hasn’t engaged in even pretend violence. The left-wing SEIU is the most violence-prone movement on our current political scene and has now and then assaulted Tea Party gatherings. The Tea Party itself is middle aged, middle class and well aware that ballots are a better tactic than bullets in the 21st Century U.S.

Does this mean that the blood libel against it will fail? I wish that I could say “yes” with full assurance. Still, I’m not too pessimistic. This horrible incident may awaken more Americans to the irrational hatred that seethes within a large proportion of latter day progressive politics. We can hope that left-wing hatemongers will then go the way of the quondam militias.

Addendum: Jim Lindgren has gone to the trouble of ferreting out Jared Loughner’s political opinions. Notably, Loughner vehemently objects to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (calling them “war crimes”), loathes religion, and believes that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job”. Prof. Lindgren concludes:

My hope in exploring Loughner’s politics is to take the political argument off the table, not to turn it around. Unfortunately, I think that the likeliest way to get some people to back off their hateful and inflammatory rhetoric — blaming people who are not at fault — is if the people doing the finger pointing begin to realize that Loughner was more probably a mentally deranged left winger than a mentally deranged right winger. In either event, the derangement, not his political orientation, is the proximate and ultimate cause of his mass murders.

Comments

[Rick Ficek]

Dear Tom Veal.If as you contend(that)Loughner is crazy "tout court" then leave it at that.While you deride Krugman for possibly insinuating and hoping that Laughren was right-wing:"Former economist Paul Krugman knew right away what to think about the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Kelly (D–Ariz.): “We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.” Violence by conservatives, of course.",you ,in my opinion,undercut your position,a day later,by using,that is,by quoting Jim Lindgren "Unfortunately, I think that the likeliest way to get some people to back off their hateful and inflammatory rhetoric — blaming people who are not at fault — is if the people doing the finger pointing begin to realize that Loughner was more probably a mentally deranged left winger than a mentally deranged right winger." Can't have it both ways,even indirectly.Regards,Rick Ficek