It Wasn't Political?

I did not want to write too hasty of a post following Saturday's massacre at which a federal judge was killed as a U.S. Congresswoman, who was the apparent target, was shot in the head.

But having watched the coverage the past two days, I have found it shocking the extent to which some, both on the right and in the establishment media, are seeking to portray this somehow as a non-political event. (Arizona Senator Jon Kyl may take the cake for attacking Tucson's sheriff for suggesting that the heated political discourse in his area had some effect upon this event.)

As James Fallows writes, there is no such thing as a non-political shooting of a politician.

Shootings of political figures are by definition "political." That's how the target came to public notice; it is why we say "assassination" rather than plain murder.

Was this tragedy directly linked to partisan politics? Unlikely. But was there no causal connection between the rhetoric and actions of some who have sought to fan the flames and the events of this past weekend? The threats of "Second Amendment remedies" from a leading Senate candidate last year? The fundraiser during the past election cycle held by the opponent of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in which supporters "were invited to 'shoot a fully automatic M-16' with him to symbolize his assault on her campaign"? I am not so certain that the answer to this is no.