Too late, Jared Loughner Despite your 5:00 a.m. MySpace plea yesterday, millions are mad at you, outraged by your bloodbath in a Tucson suburb.
They're mad at your parents -- they raised you, after all. They're mad at the community college that suspended you; the police who reviewed the "disturbing" video that led to your suspension; your friends and classmates who knew something was seriously amiss; the Army, which found you unsuitable for military service; the hate group you may or may not have belonged to.
We don't yet know yet if you saw a psychiatrist or a psychologist, as recommended by your school. But if so, that person will no doubt be spotlighted as well, brought within the ambit of popular anger. Likewise, any judge who, aware of your "troubling" history, might have failed to hold you accountable for previous crimes. Then there's an alleged accomplice who could have influenced your murderous spree, or helped you plan it.
What we're saying, Jared, is that many of us are "mad." Some of us are just not sure where to place our anger.
We'll speculate endlessly on what you did, why you did it, how it might have been prevented, what is or should be in store for you, and, what all of this means for the body politic, for our society.
We would do well to recognize, as does Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik of Pima County, that much of today's political conversation consists of escalating hatred, fear, ignorance, and intolerance. At a minimum, the current atmosphere helps explain why today's public officials are at greater risk than ever before.
There is cause to believe that Jared Loughner is suffering a form of psychosis. If so, we should keep two things in mind.
First, 90 percent of those diagnosed with mental illness such as schizophrenia are nonviolent; they are highly unlikely to bring a gun to a political gathering, or to open fire under any circumstances. In fact, they are often too disoriented and frightened to be a threat to anyone, including themselves. Their need is for understanding, and for the financial and emotional support of their families, friends, and community, particularly the medical community.
Second, mentally ill persons with violent predispositions are also deserving of our support. That support, though, must have as its top priority the protection of the individual and his or her potential victims.
One giant step in that direction would be for our political leaders, including those aspiring to leadership, to put an end to the overheated rhetoric that leaves little doubt about intent, namely to "eliminate" the competition.
Gabrielle Giffords' tea party opponent urged his supporters to "remove [her] from office" in one breath and in the next invited those same supporters to come out to the range and pop rounds from his M16. A half-term governor and failed vice presidential candidate used gunsights to mark legislative districts targeted for defeat. Most of us do not believe these politicos are advocating actual violence. But some do believe it, and that's when things go bad.
As Sheriff Dupnik put it, "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government...The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country [it is] getting to be outrageous..." He believes Arizona has become the "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
It does seem that the home state of John McCain, who was once a beacon of decency and civil discourse but is now a tea party toady, heads the list of states that embrace lunacy as political currency. But the list is long and growing. Where are the right-wing officials who don't merely issue statements of condemnation in the wake of such violence but who actually help to bring about a grownup version of American politics?
Of course, I'm mad at Jared Loughner. Who can forget the image of the lawmaker, the judge, the child, and so many others lying dead or wounded on a sunny morning? But my deepest anger is reserved for that segment of the political sphere that has legitimated incendiary language in our political process.
Every politician who has used the language of guns and bullets in everyday political discourse should stop and think about whether his or her voice contributed to yesterday's carnage.