Parker: What Americans can do to discourage future McVeighs

By Kathleen Parker

Monday's 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people in the nation's worst act of terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001, has prompted renewed concerns about growing anti-government sentiment.

Is the political environment becoming so toxic that we could see another Timothy McVeigh emerge?

No one knows the answer, but fears that anger could escalate into action beyond the ballot box are not misplaced. Ninety-nine percent of angry Americans might be perfectly satisfied to rail at their TVs - or to show up at a Tea Party rally - but it takes only one.

The biggest concern for security folks in Washington is the lone operator, the John Hinckley, who tries to take out a president for his fantasy girlfriend. Or some variation thereof.

This is why “Don't retreat. Reload,” Sarah Palin's recent imperative to her Tea Party audience, felt so off. Obviously, she wasn't suggesting that people arm themselves, as she has explained several times since. Hunting and military vocabulary are hardly new to politics. We “target” audiences or “set our sights” on policies and politicians all the time.

But words matter, as we never tire of saying. And these are especially sensitive times, given our first African American president and unavoidable fears about the worst-case scenario.

Such fears are not unfounded. I hear daily from dissatisfied Americans who feel their duty is not only to protest but to fight if necessary. Here is one recent example, in response to a column I had written about America's true centrist nature:

“Sorry, honey, but we don't need the squishy middle right now. We need the hyper patriots, the combat vets ready to defend the Constitution with arms if necessary.”

The distance between such thinking and recent examples of overt hostility seems too little.

After the health-care bill's passage, some Democratic members of Congress were threatened. At a Tea Party rally in Washington, some claim that racial slurs were aimed at, of all people, Georgia Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights hero. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank was also targeted, so to speak, with language denigrating to gays.

All of the above have put the nation ill at ease. Add to the mixture of organic anger and grass-roots momentum the heckling language of Beck, Limbaugh & Co., and one fears that volatility could become explosive. What's next, militias?

What is clear is that technology and social media have empowered the least sane among us and amplified their voices. Thus, a random racist at a Tea Party rally suddenly becomes the face of a group of people who are, on the whole, decent, law-abiding citizens with legitimate concerns about government expansion and the inherent erosion of individual freedom.

The challenge for all, but especially the media, is to find a balance between vigilance and restraint. How do we expose the unhinged without emboldening them with attention? Inevitably, the lone operator hears his own name summoned from the crowd.

The only palatable answer is what conservatives say they love best: self-control and personal responsibility. When someone spews obscenities, shout them down. When pundits use inflammatory language, condemn them.

When you choose to remain silent, consider yourself complicit in whatever transpires.

n Comments: kathleenparker@washpost.com