Contrary to what Hollywood usually has to say, Americans have a high threshold for national tragedy. When bad things happen, we tend to take the bullet - one for the team, as it were - by becoming a team. We rise to the occasion to right the wrong and emerge - at least in the short term - a stronger people for it. This was the case during the Oklahoma City bombing in '95, the numerous school shootings (paramount amongst them, Columbine) of the late 90s and early 2000s, 9/11, and even Katrina, where it wasn't so much a failure of people as it was failure of government and infrastructure. (The 'people's' failure there, perhaps, was depending on government to be there; infrastructure not to fail...)
There is a human thread running through all of us that makes this possible, but I also believe it's a unique testament to American society. The diversity that makes this country great engenders an adaptability and versatility, which we draw from in times of crisis.
Thankfully, political assassination is infrequent in the world, but when it happens anywhere it can have devastating effects; it has been known in the past to plunge whole societies into war. For that reason, when it happens in America in 2011, I get nervous.
We don't need this...
We don't need to be rendered more fractious politically than we already are.
Yet that is precisely what has happened in the wake of the tragic Tucson shooting. In spite of the President's best efforts, in spite of all the stories arising (as they should) of heroism in those fatal moments, heroism that helped stave off further carnage, battle lines that were already slashed deeply into the sand got a little deeper. The divides between us - that often seem insurmountable without some kind of epic meltdown - became more pronounced.
In an instant, we were rendered more red state/blue state than ever.
And yet, in spite of the fact that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was amongst the targets, reportedly the primary target, I'm not entirely convinced that the gunman's actions in Tuscon were politically motivated.
Why? Because Jared Lee Loughner is a fucking nut job. Plain and simple.
He stood for nothing, and so accomplished nothing. There really is no reason, that I can see, to associate him with Sarah Palin, Tea Partiers or politics in general. Or, perhaps more accurately, no reason to associate them with him. This I say not in defense of Palin, Partiers or right-side politics, but in the interest of fairness and logic. Loughner seemed to be against everything, fighting the implacable (but convenient) enemy that is 'society'. There isn't, or shouldn't be, political hay to be made out of this, and whether America needs - desperately needs - to tone down its political rhetoric (and it does) has nothing to do with what happened in Tucson.
"Maniac with a gun kills six in Tucson."
That's how the headline should have read, and there was a time in this country it would have. 'Maniac with a gun...' would have been all there was to know, and the printing of the shooter's name would have been as much as most people would ever learn about Jared Loughner, the fact that Rep. Giffords was his target as deeply into the story as most would have bothered to travel.
Today, of course, it's a completely different situation. Endless speculation, finger-pointing and a sick fixation with sensationalizing the story in hopes of creating some kind of cult of personality (of fear, not adulation) for Loughner that befits his frightening mug shot, are the norm (that last a practice which has resulted in his final 'wild night' - as The Huffington Post referred to it - sounding too much like the treatment for an Oliver Stone flick).
None of it offers so much as a ficker of insight into his state of mind that we didn't already know merely from the fact that he opened fire in the first place.
What bearing does his red G-string have on anything?
It's a dirty and unnecessary (but titillating, nevertheless) business, trotting out Loughner's old friends and classmates and giving them 15 minutes of fame to spill what they know, particularly when their memories all seem vague at best, and the relevance of those memories as they relate to what happened in Tuscon last weekend speculative. All of it under in hopes of better understanding...what? HOW crazy he is? That he smoked a lot of dope? That he not only shot 20 people but wore a G-string while he did it?
"Maniac with a gun kills six in Tucson."
All that needed to be said.
I have heard a few pundits talking about the need for addressing mental health issues in the wake of the tragedy. Granted, that's healthy. There clearly were warning signs of Loughner's mental disintegration early on. But really, what could have been done? Just as the police can't intervene before a crime has been committed, what can students/friends/family be expected to do, short of trying to commit someone like Loughner, to stave off a tragedy?
Being a creep isn't a crime. Irrational behavior, unpopular - even offensive - opinions can't (and shouldn't) be crimes.
The truth is, Loughner probably could not have been helped. And talking it to death now, hammering out every detail of his addled mind and failed life, past and present, does more harm than good. Every word that is uttered adds to his mythos, ensures that just like Charles Manson is known today as a cult figure (namesake for the likes of Brian Hugh Warner; aka Marilyn Manson; his (Charles') songs performed by numerous artists), Loughner, who sports the same blank, wild-eyed visage, will probably one day wind up on the tee shirt of some as-yet unborn jackass who thinks he's being cute, or edgy. Safely removed from the tragedy, from the suffering, the fear, the sadness, this individual will somehow see himself (cuz it's almost always a dude who does stupid shit like that...) making a statement.
Loughner does not deserve that fifteen minutes of fame. It just might be exactly what he'd like to see happen.
