Since Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others at a Safeway in Tucson, there has been a vigorous debate in the US over whether the use of violent metaphors and images in political speech played a role in encouraging a mentally unbalanced young man to kill. What does American history tell us about the relationship between violent acts and the political acrimony of the day?
The New York Times asked seven historians what they thought of this question. The historians, many of whom are specialists in the more violent periods of US history, had some interesting things to say. However, I think the roundtable discussion could have been better had some historians of other countries been invited to comment. The seven historians are citizens of the US who study the US. An international perspective would have been valuable. The whole roundtable struck me as far too parochial and inward-looking. My reading of the situation is that the NYT reporter who organized this article was a bit lazy and decided only to contact historians with US phone numbers. Fair enough, but it might have been helpful to speak to historians in US universities who were born abroad or who study other countries.
Possible questions to ask include: Why were there so many assassinations/kidnappings/terrorism in western Europe in the 1970s (Red Brigades)? Why has that region become much more peaceful recently? Did the use of violent metaphors in political speech in the Weimar Republic contribute to the endemic political violence of Germany in that period? Why does Canada, a country with widespread ownership of hunting rifles have a much lower murder rate than the US? Why are political assassinations so infrequent in Canadian history and much more common on the other side of the border?
Here are some questions the lazy-ass NYT reporter should have tried to have answered. It is disappointing that the NYT a newspaper read by the cosmopolitan elite of the US and which has an international edition on its website would be so parochial in this regard.
The Past Speaks 