A New Movement: "No Labels" and the First Responsible Statements Regarding the AZ Massacre and Polarized Political Debate in America

Posted by: Noël Jones

I have intentionally been a little slow on the draw (uh oh, gun reference) in response to the recent tragedy in Arizona, where six people were killed and 14 injured in a shooting spree by a disturbed 22 year-old who fired into a crowd of innocent bystanders after an assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition. In the deluge of ensuing media coverage, certain aspects of public response disturb me. Among these are the dangerously-close-to-vitriolic appeals made to limit vitriolic commentary, the suggestion that the use of metaphor should be censored in public debate, the assertions that the acts of a madman should limit gun rights for other Americans, and the seemingly tacit agreement in our government, our media and even much of our public, and a government officials tragedy somehow takes precedence over the tragedies of average Americans affected by this rampage. 

As all that is quite a lot to process, I have been hoping that I might be able to aggregate responsible commentary from others, but very little of what I have witnessed on TV, read in quotes in the papers, or received in emails from liberal organizations has even come close to satisfying my concerns--with two exceptions: comments from a guest named Rachel Sklar yesterday on MSNBC (whom I had never seen before) and the recent statement put out by a new political movement on the rise, No Labels, which strives to bring together members from the left and the right to promote responsible productive debate, rather than the polarizing rhetoric that has poisoned our public dialogue in the last two years.

Rachel Sklar, in debate with another pundit on the topic of Sarah Palin's rhetoric and its possible ties to the violence in Arizona, said this--when directly asked how she could defend Sarah Palin and say that she is not in some way responsible for the tragedy that occurred, after publishing a map with gunsight symbols posted over Democratic political targets:

"There is a big difference between saying that Sarah Palin is responsible for this, and saying that we would like Sarah Palin to behave more responsibly."

I couldn't agree more. Those of you who know me and know that I am also from Alaska, know that I am no fan of Sarah Palin. But I am also a poet and writer in general, and I have a big problem with the idea of censoring the use of metaphor, or blaming the use of metaphor for actual committed crimes. 

It is a very slippery slope to go down when we start suggesting that that metaphor is literal, for a couple of reasons: 1) we begin to limit freedom of expression, and 2) we heighten vitriol, rather than minimizing it, as there is no one I know that would not be offended to the core by the suggestion that they are somehow responsible for the murder of six innocent people, including a 9 year-old girl. It does not matter how diplomatically you try to package it, the accusation is implicit in most liberal responses I have witnessed with regard to this horrible tragedy, and it is hypocritical to assert that one is appealing for a reduction in vitriol while simultaneously suggesting that one’s opponents are responsible for the cold-blooded murder of innocent people, whether those opponents are merely political candidates, pundits in the media, or simply gun-rights advocates among our citizenry. This kind of behavior only widens the divide, deepens mistrust between sides, and heightens the polarization of a national debate that should be an earnest conversation focused on problem-solving and vision—the kind that I aim (uh oh—another gun metaphor) to promote on this blog.

So I have been waiting for someone to make what I consider to be a responsible public statement, and I have finally found one, from a new organization called No Labels that has sprung up recently among people of all parties and no parties at all, which is quickly gaining momentum across the country. Here’s what Nancy Jacobson (Democrat) & Mark McKinnon (Republican) 
Co-Founders of No Labels had to say:

“The horrific act of violence that occurred Saturday in Arizona has shocked us all to our core and spurred many Americans to ask some hard questions, both about this specific incident and the larger political forces that may have contributed to it. We at No Labels believe this kind of conversation, as painful as the circumstances surrounding it are, is in the best interests and traditions of our country. At times of crisis, when our fundamental democratic values are threatened, we come together as Americans and directly confront our challenges.

But for our country to move forward from this tragedy, we have to talk carefully as well as candidly. We do not yet know all the facts behind this senseless act, and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to rush to judgment or point fingers of blame at the moment, as some sadly have already done. This is no time for self-aggrandizement or partisan point-scoring -- that's part of the problem, not the solution.

It is clearly, though, a time for self-reflection, as Sheriff Dupnik eloquently put it. Based on the immediate and intuitive reactions of so many Americans, we know enough to say that something is deeply wrong with our political discourse -- and that with this incident, a dangerous line has been crossed. As we grieve for those who died and pray for the recovery of those who were injured, we hope this moment of mourning will lead us to engage each other with more civility and respect and see each other not as opponents or enemies but as Americans.”

I know that these are very emotional issues for debate, and anyone and everyone is welcome (in fact, encouraged) to disagree with me, so please post your thoughts and lets make a genuine effort to disagree civilly--to make strong points while remaining respectful of everyone's right to disagree--better yet, rather than clinging to our viewpoints as if we were in a battle of survival of our very identities, to actually be open to considering the points of view of others and even to concede points when persuaded. In this way, as we have all along, we set an example for fruitful discussions on the local level, rather than relying on the bad behavior of our government and our media to set an example. 


You will never be deleted for disagreeing with me or anyone else on this blog--in fact--this blog thrives on differing points of view. And you certainly will not be deleted for using gun metaphors--but anyone resorting to pointless vitriol and personal attacks will be deleted for promoting hate and failing to contribute productively to the conversation. I wish that the Express-Times on line would do the same, rather than allowing bigotry and vitriol to poison public discussion...maybe if they started getting letters from the public...(if you'd like to write a letter to the editor, please use the link on the right side bar of this home page).


Let's have an earnest discussion and debate about this. What do you think? Words are powerful, but are they responsible for crime committed by others? And what do readers think of this new No Labels organization? Gun control? Let's show them how constructive debate is done. Prepare your points and post your comments!