Levels of discourse

Yesterday, I quoted Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking about the "vitriol" and saying that "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." This was said in connection with his investigation of the shooting in Tucson.

Today, Megyn Kelly of Fox News, confronted him, asking if he had any evidence that the suspect was "listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw?" And, of course, he didn't have any such evidence. Nor was he suggesting a direct, one-to-one causation in this individual case. In contrast, there is evidence of a serious mental disturbance and disruptive behavior, leading up to this act.

Kelly persisted: "With respect, sheriff, I know that you're a Democrat and you ran for office as a Democrat, and I just want to press you on that a little. I'm sure some of our viewers are asking themselves why you are putting a political spin on this . . . they may be asking why you the sheriff aren't just focused on the facts, on uncovering the facts."

What we're dealing with here are two levels of discourse. At one level, let's call it the medico-legal level, we have a paranoid psychotic man, with delusions about the federal government controlling his life, who opens fire in a crowd and kills six people and wounds 12 others. Here the sheriff is off base and should stick to the facts.

Let's call the other level the socio-political level. Here the sheriff is quite right to raise the issue of the general level of vitriol preached on radio, television, and on the internet and what effect that has. Does it have an effect on us all? Yes. Does that include mentally unstable people. Yes. Can we prove that the suspect listened to any of this? Not yet, although it's hard to see how anyone living in Arizona could avoid it. Or anywhere else in the U.S., for that matter, if they watch or read the news at all. But did it order him to buy a gun and shoot his congresswoman? No.

Is Sarah Palin guilty of murder? No. Is Sarah Palin guilty of contributing to the discourse of violence in this country as a way to address your grievances? Not as much as if she were actually calling for Democrats to be assassinated, paying a bounty for each one killed, etc.

But in a more insidious, subtle way, she does contribute to that way of thinking with her gun metaphors and her slogans (don't retreat; reload). At the least, I would say she is playing with fire and intentionally stirring up less stable, angry, and often paranoid people.

If we keep clear about the two levels of discourse, though, we won't have quite so much to argue about, which might open the possibility for really addressing the problem. Kelly probably wouldn't deny that the vitriol exists and has reached a dangerous level -- if she didn't need to defend her conservative base from being held "responsible" for what happened.

And the sheriff wouldn't need to keep insisting that the vitriol is dangerous, if the other side would agree that it is.

Ralph