Be careful when placing blame

By The Gazette Editorial Board

---

A lone gunman's shooting rampage in Arizona that left six dead and 13 wounded, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition, is, foremost, a horrific, senseless action. Americans of all persuasions are, or should be, sickened. Outraged. Angry. And searching for answers.

We are saddened and offer our sympathy and prayers for the victims.

Not unexpected, and perhaps understandable to a degree, some want to pin the blame on someone or something in addition to the 22-year-old suspect - they blame the level of political rhetoric found these days in talk shows, candidates' campaigns and congressional debates.

Some pundits, politicians

and others almost immediately tried to link Saturday's tragedy to what they describe as a poisonous political environment that tips some people to violence. The Tea Party movement and the right-wing conservatives seemed to get the brunt of the blame. For example, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democratic leader, told CNN on Sunday that some of their tactics “ ... invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response.”

We agree that the level of political discourse in our nation is often way less than civil, even ugly and irresponsible.

But claiming that free speech excesses are the cause of, or an accessory to, this crime is a premature overreaction that could cloud the public's perception as the investigation unfolds and lead to kneejerk reactions by lawmakers - i.e., more restrictions and less interaction with the public.

The accused shooter, Jared Loughner, has been widely described as a troubled, social outcast whose political beliefs virtually defy description. His Internet postings and testimony from friends and classmates paint a picture of a paranoid, unstable person who carried mistrust of government to an extreme.

If Loughner is eventually prosecuted for multiple counts of murder and other charges, is it appropriate to make political rhetoric or certain political groups just as culpable? How do we know that Loughner, assuming he's guilty, wouldn't have done this terrible thing even in a calmer, more civil political environment?

These difficult questions are similar to ones Americans have wrestled with many times. Our nation's priceless Bill of Rights and long tradition have highly valued free speech and access to the politicians who want to serve us.

If this tragedy can bring about any improvement in civility, respect and accountability in the public arena, that would certainly be welcome. We can and should do better.

We also should look for ways to promote and produce more civility without putting chains on the flow of information, ideas and, yes, even heated disagreement that fuels and shapes our democracy.