America reels after atrocity in Arizona

Published: January 9 2011 19:12 | Last updated: January 9 2011 19:12

The shooting in Tucson on Saturday, which killed six and left 14 injured – with Gabrielle Giffords, a member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona, in critical condition – is an appalling act in its own right, but how much worse this crime will be if it deepens the country’s already bitter political divisions. That seemed all too possible as news of the attack spread across the US this weekend.

Little was known of the shooter and a possible accomplice as the Financial Times went to press, but the indications are that in his derangement he saw his crime as a political act. Ms Giffords, a popular Democrat who won re-election in November despite the Republican surge, had faced attacks from conservatives over her support for healthcare reform. Her office, and the offices of other Democrats, had been vandalised.

It has been widely noted that Sarah Palin’s website included a map of political targets which put the cross-hairs of a gunsight over Ms Giffords’s district and others. “It’s time to take a stand,” said the caption. Ms Palin offered condolences to the families of Ms Giffords and the other victims.

Deplorable as such imagery may be, in truth violent rhetoric in US politics is not confined to one side. Although gun-toting metaphors have been most popular on the right, activists in both parties routinely couch their attacks on opponents in the most furious language. The leaders of both parties have consistently failed to repudiate this. Quite the opposite. On both sides, “firing up the base” is standard operating procedure.

Pleas for a more civil mode of discourse are mocked by politically engaged Americans. Sticking it to the enemy is what politics is all about, many insist. Anyway, the other side is evil, says each side. You do not compromise with evil.

Vigorous debate is essential in any democracy, but violent rhetoric breeds violence – the more so in the United States, where the insanely aggressive are prone to own guns. This should be an occasion for Americans to reflect and to join in rejection of a politics fuelled by hatred. But the signs so far are mixed.

Wise politicians and commentators on both sides have called for violent and inflammatory language to be expunged from political debate. Some others, however, are already blaming the other side’s provocations, and quarrelling about who is most at fault for the collapse in civil dialogue. This is a moment for Americans to set aside such recriminations and stand together.