Paul Krugman on the Violence in Arizona

It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

So writes Paul Krugman about the tragedy in Arizona and our current political climate in The New York Times. My only real criticism of this article is it isn't long enough, the commentary is so useful. In the article, Krugman shows how while the Arizona shooter appears to be a lone-ranger, his action comes in a climate of hate in which threats to lawmakers have skyrocketed.

Right-wing radio talk show hosts are busy defending themselves when they should be full of nothing but sympathy for the victims and their families. This shows a certain selfishness and defensiveness.

Indeed this event has prompted a long-overdue national discussion of the vitriol which has spewed from certain sources. Krugman's article helps clarify the fact that a certain kind of vitriol, especially that suggestive of guns and violence, is coming overwhelmingly from the right, Republicans, and tea partiers. As the author says, we must protect vigorous speech, even when full of energy, mockery and sarcasm. But to advise one's constituents to be "armed and dangerous" as one Rep. Michelle Bachmann recently did is irresponsible in the extreme. It is time to name such for what they are: persons whose comments are completely out-of-bounds and impermissible in Congress or anywhere in civil society.