A talented saxophonist. High school dropout. A paranoid schizophrenic. The suspect. These are all phrases used by the New York Times to describe Jared Lee Loughner, within the same article no less. He is a complex person. And no doubt his reason for the events that occurred January 15th are no less complex.
On his YouTube page, Loughner’s videos deal with issues such as education, the importance of grammar, and government, especially ideas of needing a “new currency.” Full of confounding deductive logic, Loughner says things such as, “If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen” (ironically, note the bad grammar) and, “Every police officer in the Unites States as of now is unconstitutionally working.”
The New York Times described Loughner’s past in a similar way James W. Clarke spoke about Sam Byck. Aside from mental illness, the Times also includes the “real problems” Loughner had – estrangement with his father, drug problems and an interest in anti-government conspiracy theories.
Another YouTube video, from a channel called DTOM News, notes that on Loughner’s YouTube channel, Loughner describes himself in the past tense, because when “everyone found out who the shooter was, he would be dead.” Justin Faith, creator of DTOM news, believes that everything published to the YouTube profile was completely thought-out and intentionally published. In another video, Faith states that Loughner believes himself a “revolutionary hero” who is part of a “militia movement”, a “super patriot” like Timothy McVeigh believed himself to be.
If you’re getting that sense that Loughner sounds a lot like Byck and Oswald, you’re not alone. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot,” Byck said.
One could easily say that Loughner is just a “lone nut,” that he’s totally mentally unstable and that’s why this happened. However, I think that’s only one part of issue. Plenty of people have mental disorders such as schizophrenia and do not end up trying to kill a congresswoman and murdering six other people. Loughner’s interest in politics is important here.
One could also (and probably rightly, in some ways) blame Glenn Beck for what has occurred. After the shooting, Beck spoke about the incident on his show. I was hoping for an inspiring talk about choosing words carefully. I was, of course, setting my expectations too high, and had my motivations all wrong. Though the video was called “Glenn issues a challenge to stand against violence,” Beck spent more time arguing about the rhetoric of the left and how they are the ones to be blamed than standing against conflict. I could go on and on about that, but it would only get me frustrated and utterly off-track. Instead, I’m going to focus on something that will now be known as the Beck Paradox. “The shooter was nuts. Pure and simple,” Beck said. He states that people who believe 9/11 was an inside job by the government are dangerous. Funny, given that (according to Dana Milbank) Beck has previously warned his viewers of FEMA operating a concentration camp in Wyoming. Paradox Number One. Beck continues on about how fascism and communism are two schools of thought “along two rails of the same train.” But later he says that it’s “almost like there’s no difference between these two to this guy” (referring to Loughner). Paradox Number Two. Beck also stresses that incidents such as Loughner’s shooting are because of the individual, not a group (such as the Tea Party). But he goes on to discuss the events of 9/11, saying they took down the Twin Towers in the name of Allah, and that “the media” focuses too much on the individuals and not on the group they might be a part of. Paradox Number Three.
I think it’s pretty easy to see how someone with the life and mental troubles of Loughner and his strong interest in politics would hear Beck’s contradictions and interpret things in possibly dangerous ways. Hell, I watched the video three times and I still don’t really know what Beck is advocating for. As Milbank pointed out, Beck once said on his show, “Hold these people responsible. If you know they go shopping on Saturday at Safeway, get in the parking lot at Safeway.” Oh shit.
Yet making Beck a scapegoat isn’t quite right. It’d be like blaming Karl Marx for the Russian Revolution, blaming words rather than the atmosphere they were said in. However, Marx was dead by then and couldn’t exactly defend or clarify his words. Beck can… and doesn’t really. He just calls Laughner crazy. Crazy he may be, but he’s not the only one. I found this comment posted on one of Justin Faith’s YouTube responses to the Tucson shootings:
The Jared Loughner they Have in Custody is not the same Jared Loughner that had the Website and political views. The person in custody is not even Jared Loughner at all. Check the eye color, and the massive moles on his face, to the pics of the activist Jared Loughner that was supposed to be the shooter. Two Different people entirely. Just like Saddam Hussein, a political agenda between the media and the NWO to take away gun rights from everyone.
And the conspiracy theories begin anew…
However, Glenn Beck (as much as it pains me to say it) does make a good point. If the tweet from the Daily Kos saying, “Mission accomplished Sarah Palin,” was truly released before we knew the name of the shooter (going off Beck’s word, here) then the “mainstream media’s” jumping to conclusions should be addressed. But Beck also says the Kos should not be responsible for saying things like this; it’d be the same as holding Sarah Palin responsible. Of course, this is after he’s bad mouthed the “liberal press” beyond the point of no return. Paradox Number Four, for those still keeping track.
Beck is not the only one making crazy contradictions though. The charming Jon Stewart did a segment on Representative Steve Cohen who, one week after stressing for more civil discourse in politics, compared Republicans to Nazis (check out the video here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-20-2011/word-warcraft). Introducing the Cohen Paradox…
What's strange, I think, is that Loughner -- unlike Byck -- wasn't actually affiliated with any political groups. He didn't attend meetings, go to rallies, or even rant politics to his friends (according to Bryce Tierney, as reported by Mother Jones). In college, his interests were philosophy, logic, and English -- not political science. He seemed detached from the entire political system; according to CBS, he didn't even vote in 2010. So it seems unlikely that he would have shot Giffords to stop her political agenda, or as an agent for another political party. On the other hand, as you say, his interest in politics can't be ignored altogether. It was no coincidence that Giffords was a Congresswoman.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that we ("society") tend to view insanity as a singular problem, as if each person's craziness is totally isolated, inscrutable and incomprehensible -- as when Beck says, "The shooter was nuts. Pure and simple" -- as if that explained everything. Case closed. There's an interesting article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2281140/) on the fiction Loughner loved -- that many people love, in fact. The ideas he was (is -- I keep referring to him as if he's dead!) obsessed with are popular ideas. I'm not trying to argue that Loughner is the same as the rest of us (that would be crazy!), but I think it's unfair to treat him as if he's alien. Which is what each political party is doing, of course. Much too dangerous to scrutinize ourselves as human.... Let's defend the honor of our ideology instead.