The freedom to assemble

Less than an hour after yesterday's shooting at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' constituent meeting, the internet was buzzing not only with rumors about the number and condition of victims and the identity of the suspect, but with interpretations of the event. Much of the early punditry consisted of liberals blaming conservatives, particularly the Tea Party, for sparking the violence with their incendiary election-year rhetoric and frequent gun-related metaphors; and conservatives using scraps of information from the suspect's My Space and You Tube accounts to insist that he wasn't one of them (he might even have been - gasp - a socialist!) and that the attack therefore had nothing to do with the Tea Party or the Republican takeover of the House or anything of current political significance.

The pundits on the right might have a point. If the FBI has the right guy in custody (and if he acted alone, a premise which has been thrown into some doubt now), then the culprit seems to be an extremely unstable individual, possibly schizophrenic. His writing is paranoid at best but mostly incoherent, and the few political issues that came up in a search of his online footprint were not the hot issues of the day that usually provoke threatening language. There's no mention of the health care bill or abortion, the bank bailout or immigration reform (except for references - pretty ironic given the suspect's own writing - to large numbers of illiterate people and some sort of government conspiracy to restructure English grammar). His one intelligible political concern seems to be with currency and the gold standard, a question that to my knowledge hasn't come close to inspiring violence since the turn of the last century. The suspect was rejected when he tried to enlist in the military and was recently suspended from the community college he attended, on condition that he undergo a mental examination after complaints surfaced about disturbing You Tube videos and disruptive outbursts during class. In The Atlantic, James Fallows gave us a survey of the probable motivations behind assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. political figures and concludes that mental illness and personal grievance are usually the primary factors. It's hard to link most assassinations in this country to the policies the targeted politicians espoused.

It's way too early, then, for Democrats to say that Republicans (or even their extreme right wing) are to blame for yesterday's outrageous attack. Even if Tea Partiers and their allies have spawned the latest iteration of a volatile, mean-spirited, polarized, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and gun-glorifying political climate (and I think they have), it will be very difficult to prove that their rhetoric inspired Jared Lee Loughner in particular to commit this act. We have no idea what influence figures like Glenn Back, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reily, Michelle Bachmann, or other fear-mongers may have had on him. For all we know, he might be a socialist. Or nothing at all - just unbalanced. Further investigation may turn up connections between Loughner and Congresswoman Giffords' political enemies. But what if it doesn't? What if in the end we're left with no one to blame?

What upsets me most about yesterday's attack (other than, of course, the loss of life and the suffering of the wounded) is that, regardless of the actual motivations of the shooter, it was functionally an act of terrorism - not attempted assassination. Loughner may have been gunning for Congresswoman Giffords, but he shot eighteen other people in the process. This wasn't an assassination attempt in which only staffers and bodyguards standing very close to the official were hurt. The shooter, according to eyewitness reports, continued firing into the crowd surrounding the Congresswoman.

America is a nation that has not experienced significant levels of political violence in a long time; while we fear gang-related shootings, armed robberies, drive-bys, serial killers, drug deals gone bad, road rage, and the like, for the most part we aren't afraid to vote. We aren't afraid to attend rallies or marches or County Council meetings or debates or informational meetings with our representatives. When Americans fail to participate in our democracy, the fault lies with apathy, overwhelming work and family schedules, and lack of education - not usually with fear of participating.

We read about how elections are conducted in other countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya, the Ivory Coast, Haiti, Sri Lanka, and the list goes on - and consider ourselves lucky that we do not take our lives into our hands when we associate and assemble with others for political purposes, or when we go to the polls. Sure, there are exceptions even here; violence has recently interrupted courtroom proceedings and school board meetings. But these episodes have, by God's grace, been isolated and have resulted in little loss of life. Now, we have a glaring example of ordinary citizens - just constituents there to meet their representative, not even marching for a particular party or cause - being gunned down in the parking lot of a grocery store. I am profoundly worried that there will be a chilling effect on political speech and association as Americans start to consider it risky to stand around in a public place, participating in politics. Thus, the attack was an example of domestic terrorism, in that (regardless of the motivation) it had the effect of creating fear through targeting seemingly random individuals.

Nor do I know what to do about this. Our typical response to terrorism is to greatly increase security. I foresee that those Senators and members of Congress who do not currently have security personnel will get them, that metal detectors will be placed at entrances to town hall meetings and polling places, and that people will have to submit to searches and pat-downs to attend a political event or even just to vote. But that approach could put even more of a damper on political involvement, making an exercise of our freedom of assembly much more time-consuming, unpleasant, and intimidating. And yet, that could be better than letting such gatherings become bloodbaths. I don't see a good solution.

I do think, though, that it would behoove both Republicans and Democrats, as they issue all their obligatory statements of condolence and shock, not just to condemn violence, but to affirm that we Americans will refuse to sink gently into a polity of fear and intimidation. That we will not let voters and constituents feel as though they are taking their lives into their hands as they participate in the system we rightly cherish. Fear of participation breeds corruption and sometimes even totalitarianism - ends abhorred on both sides of the aisle. We need the pundits, on the left and the right, to stop blaming and start talking about what a precious, ephemeral blessing it is to be able to petition our public officials, get together with like-minded people, and involve ourselves in peaceful though heated debates. Maybe then they could do their duty and inspire us instead of inciting anger and fear.

- KPE