News & Notes Op Ed: Dealing With Tragedy

There are three typical reactions to a tragedy. One is reflective and looks to remedy issues that may have contributed to or allowed the tragedy to take place, and the second is blame-centered and wants to hold people responsible and seek punishment. And the third chooses not to think about it.

A person drives drunk, causes an accident, and kills an innocent person.

Reflective person is saddened and looks to discover the core of the problem. If the drunk driver was with friends, why didn’t anyone take his keys? More public service messages might be needed. Did anyone working at the bar notice that the subject was drunk and intending to drive? Maybe bars should be encouraged to monitor patrons more closely and be proactive about encouraging cabs instead of drunk driving. Why weren’t there any police on the road that might have seen the driver swerving across lanes? The police department might be understaffed and need attention in the next state budget discussions.

Blamer is angry. Drunk driver is in jail and will be tried for manslaughter, and the jail time will serve him right. Friends were negligent in letting drunk driver leave the bar with his own keys, but they will have to live with that guilt. Someone from the bar should have stopped the man from getting in his car…or from getting so drunk in the first place; a lawsuit might hold them responsible. If the driver had any previous run-ins with the law involving drunk driving, the police department or legal system could be blamed for not punishing him more severely in the past.

Sarah Palin brought to my attention that there is that third option, which is to merely react with an emotion, like sadness, and leave it at that. In her January 12 video, she noted that the shootings occurred, the perpetrator was caught, and that’s that. “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.” Okay then.

All reactions are somewhat understandable. The first looks to make change in order to prevent a recurrence, and the second blames the guilty parties, maybe looking to hold as many people accountable as possible, and moves on. The third seems to feel that the criminal acted in a bubble. Each one uses coping mechanisms that help people process and reason such a tragedy. But considering the incident affects more than just the injured parties but rather society as a whole, which of the reactions is most productive? Which is more helpful in the long run and liable to solve a problem that realistically affects a wide range of people?

That brings me to the obvious topic here, the shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona. People died. Others are left struggling to survive, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. And many more are left to cope. Being such a mass shooting - not to mention a cold, calculated, and violent one that involved public officials - also inevitably draws a saturation of news coverage and input from other lawmakers. Theories fly, and opinions become a dime a dozen. But this is what happens in a democratic society, one that functions with the help of a plethora of media outlets and technologically advanced communication devices. People with opinions and thoughts are going to weigh in and discuss.

One of the problems during this process is that many people can’t tell the difference between a civil, timely discussion about political rhetoric, gun control, and other issues versus blame. The vast majority of pundits on TV and radio are not holding anyone but Loughner responsible, but they are seeking to instigate discussions about subjects that have arisen from the tragedy. That is the sort of movement that has the potential to make us better, as a society and as a free country.

Everyone doesn’t have to participate. Those who are too sad or disturbed by the happenings in Tucson, or those who simply have other issues on which to focus, have every right to refrain from talking the applicability of other issues to the crime. But they need to understand that we are an intelligent, analytical people by nature, and those who want to delve into some important topics will do just that.

Two primary discussions are taking place. One is the attempt to understand the extreme mental instability that seemed to be in play with Loughner, and the laws that allowed such a person to obtain a viciously deadly weapon and the throngs of bullets that did the deed, and the way Americans view and handle the subject of mental health. The other is the nature of today’s politics that makes politicians fearful of and needing protection from the citizens they represent.

There will be politics in these discussions because a politician was the primary target of the killer’s wrath. That makes it an integral part of the discussion. A politician was brutally shot - 20 people were shot in all - at a political event hosted by a politician. There is no way to keep that out of the subsequent chatter. But it can be done in a way that creates a discussion about the language and nature of the current political environment without connecting any one person or incident with this tragedy. That discussion, however, will bring out the names of people who have been or are particularly careless with their speech and those who use images irresponsibly. It doesn’t mean they are responsible in any way for Loughner’s actions, as he acted alone and without much seeming reason or rational thought and without motivation from any real coherent political leanings. It only means that political words and symbols, especially those used in heated campaigns, are part of the discussion that has emerged from the tragedy and could be used to possibly be more responsible and sensible going forward.

Rhetoric is the word of the hour. While it’s being grossly overused, the topic it represents is a real one, and it extends beyond the Sarah Palin map of crosshairs and her use of the word “reload” when discussing campaign strategies. The discussions are growing in scope to examine words used by members of the media as well as political candidates, words like target, annihilate, aim, reload, kill, and attack. With the help of one Thesaurus and a change in the tone of all involved, politics could still be reported accurately but without violent connotations and images. People like Palin refuse to have even this, the most basic of conversations, about something that can be easily changed and can be one positive result of the tragedy. However, if everyone else steps up and becomes a bit more responsible with political rhetoric, Palin and others in her frame of mind will be forced to do the same.

Many people will refrain from participating in these discussions, and it is their right to do so. But anyone who wants to be a part of the American political system might want to contribute in a productive manner instead of retreating to a corner to pout like a stubborn child. Change is a part of our society. Argue against the change or help it along, but realize and embrace that it is the nature of Americans to learn from mistakes, rise above horrific events, and become a better people.