Should Republicans and conservatives be shamed for their violent rhetoric? Sure.
Should Sarah Palin be forever condemned until she, without excuse, apologizes for her hate speech and illustrations? Absolutely.
Should it be outlawed? Of course not.
Representative Bob Brady (D-PA) will apparently introduce a bill that will make it a “federal crime to threaten or incite violence against a member of Congress or a federal official.” Now, there is a similar law that makes it a crime to threaten the President. And the Secret Service finds itself overworked and stretched thin responding to the thousands of threats, both credible and not, made each year, against just one man. How the hell are they going to respond to threats against 535 members of Congress?
But given our history of Presidential assasination, and the importance of protecting the President, the law outlawing threats against the President is necessary. Not to be blunt and crass, but the reality is protecting the President, no matter who he or she is or what political party he or she is from, is more important. Given our finite resources, practicality of enforcement is a consideration here. So too is the balance between liberty and security. We can tip the scale towards security when it involves the President because he or she is more likely than not to be the target of assassination. But I think we need to tip the scale towards liberty with respect to Congress, even given the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords.
To sacrifice more liberty or an ambigious amount of security? Nuts are still going to make threats and no law is going to stop them, and it is questionable if this proposed law can even be enforced against them.
Further, this law just feels like it is directed to Sarah Palin and the conservative media on TV and talk radio. As much as I hate and deplore what they say, and as much as I feel they all are directly responsible for what happened in Arizona, we shouldn’t be passing a law that even appears to be directed at silencing them. To quote fictional President Andrew Shepard:
America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Another overreaction is being displayed by Rep. Heath Shuler (D – N.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R – Utah). They both have announced that they will now be carrying concealed weapons on their person when in their home districts. Hey, if the laws of their particular state allow it, then they both are within their rights to do it. But thinking that carrying a weapon will somehow protect them and deter a shooter is an example of idiocy. Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, yet 16 people were shot in a matter of a few seconds. If Gabby had been packing, she would never had have the time to reach for the weapon to defend herself. And neither would Health Shuler or Jason Chaffetz if they both were in a similar situation as Gabby, talking to a constituent when a killer approaches you from behind.
I think in both situations, Brady, Shuler and Chaffetz are trying to appear strong and tough in response to what is most definitely a frightening attack on their security. How about we stop trying to appear tough, and we actually summon the internal fortitude without passing stupid laws or engaging in meaningless shows of strength.