A big leap from strong rhetoric to bomb threats

GIVEN the targeting of political figures by a mail bomber, two things are worth stating. First, no one should hesitate to condemn these acts. And second, no one should pretend political rhetoric alone caused someone to start mailing bombs.

The “rhetoric produces violence” argument would be weak even if applied consistently. It’s even weaker because it’s not.

We’re among those who believe our politics would be improved by a greater level of civil discourse, and dislike the demonization voiced by some politicians in both parties. But there’s a big leap between hearing rhetoric and threatening murder. As this is written, it’s unknown what the would-be bomber’s motive was, although reasonable inferences are drawn from the fact the targets were mostly high-profile Democrats.

But people who resort to terrorism in a peaceful democracy are not rationale. It makes no sense to blame someone else for their actions. James Hodgkinson, who tried to gun down Republican congressmen last year and seriously wounded Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., was a fan of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. Ted Kaczynski, the “Unibomber,” echoed the rhetoric of the fringe environmental left in his manifesto. After his capture and incarceration, he revealed in correspondence he preferred Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 and then favored Barack Obama in the general election. (Kaczynski could not vote.)

What is one to make of that? Nothing. Yet if the “political rhetoric is directly responsible for violence” argument has validity, it would apply equally to members of both parties.

In 2011, when then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot in a supermarket parking lot in Arizona, some were quick to proclaim conservative political rhetoric inspired the attack. It turned out the shooter was a deeply disturbed and effectively apolitical individual who believed grammar was a form of mind control.

People who embrace mass killing are, by definition, atypical and often irrational. Their actions cannot be attributed to the influence of mainstream politicians from either party. Those who think cheap-shot causal links can generate short-term political gain are mistaken. There are people on the fringe of both parties whose actions are only superficially tied to their political beliefs.

Rather than try to tar members of one party when evil and insanity arises, members of both parties should be quick to condemn it. This is happening in the case of the mail bomber. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., put things bluntly when he referred to the perpetrator as a “nut-job.” Scalise has written, “To repeat what I’ve been compelled to say far too often, violence and terror have no place in our politics or anywhere else in our society. Having experienced the effects of political violence firsthand, I am committed to speaking out against it every time it rears its ugly head.”

That’s the proper response. People who embrace violence in politics are deeply disturbed individuals. And those who insist such terrorists are typical of roughly half the nation’s voters, whether Democrat or Republican, are doing nothing to raise the tone of our politics and much to make it worse.