On Saturday January a gunman in Tucson Arizona shot and critically wounded US Representative Gabrielle Gifford and killed US Federal District Court Judge John M. Roll, and he also killed five others and wounded another 15. This news interrupted my Saturday afternoon, otherwise filled with the improbable Seahawk’s victory over the Saints, in the way the news of death and political violence often does, with a mix of shock, disbelief, and frustrated recognition of how fragile even the most relaxed moment can be.
In the immediate hours after the incident, and certainly in the days and weeks to come, many words will be spoken and written trying to understand the meaning of this event, and looking not just for legal culpability of the accused shooter, but for political responsibility and significance. Already the morning after The New York Times has published a story titled “In Attack’s Wake, Political Repercussions” the blogs are alive with analysis and speculation about the gunman, his motives and the political climate that enables and encourages political violence.
It is too early for me to join in that speculation, but let me speculate about the speculation. I can already imagine that those on the political right who have used the rhetoric and imagery of resort to violence will become self-righteously defensive about the differences between using colorful language and proper political anger on the one hand and advocating violence. The left will likely, and appropriately, challenge the claim recognizing that words are a type of action and that declaiming intent to violence does not deny responsibility for making it seem feasible, reasonable and even necessary.
But the left should be cautious here as well, for similar arguments have often been used against progressive causes and against the defense of a robust understanding of First Amendment guarantees. Examples abound of conservatives lambasting popular music, films and literature for their negative affect on culture, ranging from the silly, like Dan Quayle’s arguments with Murphy Brown, to the sinister, such as 
Ari Fleischer’s September 26, 2001 press conference when in reference to some remarks by Bill Maher on September 11th, he warned “all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do?”
Language is not separate from action but a type of action. Political speech is often banal but can also be sharply effective, and its effects almost cannot help to do more and potentially something different than what a speaker or writer intends. Now move into the post incident discussion, to political implications, to debate political extremism, reckless words even terrorism; we will discuss liability, guilt, innocence, accountability, and responsibility. We owe those wounded and slain to navigate carefully in the gray area of political freedom and responsible political debate.
– Lawrence Spaulding
.
More from Lawrence Spaulding:
On Wisconsin: Mr. Goose, Meet Ms. Gander by Lawrence Spaulding
Thoughts on Clearly Nebulous’ Query by Lawrence Spaulding
More (or Less, Really) on Words and Violence, by Lawrence Spaulding
Words and Actions, Words as Actions, by Lawrence Spaulding
On Political Writing and Reading… and Kinda Obama… by Lawrence Spaulding
Lame Ducks and Legitimacy, by Lawrence Spaulding
Will Progressives Treat BHO Better than Conservatives Treated GHWB?, by Lawrence Spaulding
.
