Violent Right Wing Rhetoric and Incitement to Violence

So we don't (yet) know what motivated the Giffords shooter, though it looks like insanity was a major factor. What we do know is that it would in no way be surprising if violent right-wing rhetoric played some role; there can be little doubt that such rhetoric raises the likelihood of political violence. (And, as the Mystic notes, you'd expect the crazies to be the canary in the coal mine in this regard.) I've said this before, but here it is again:

Many people--including politicians and influential media figures--on the right now commonly say things which, in effect, constitute an argument for the conclusion that violence ought to be used against liberals and Democrats in general and the President in particular. You can deny that you are advocating violence all you want, but if you say that liberals are evil, that they are intentionally ruining the country, that they are trying to turn the U.S. into a totalitarian "socialist" state (and succeeding), then you are building a case for the use of violence against them, intentionally or not. (And this is not to even mention claims to the effect that the President is illegitimate and, perhaps, the Antichrist.) If you say such things, then you are trying to convince people of things such that, were a rational person to believe them, he would have to consider using violence in response. I can guarantee you, were an actual totalitarian movement actually on the brink of taking power in America, I would be contemplating violence against it. You would--and should--do the same. Add to the above some rhetoric about "Second Amendment remedies," and there is no rational way to deny that the right has sidled right on up to advocating violence.

Conservatives have a defense they've used in other cases that, I suppose, they might use here--it's the "it's your fault for listening to us" defense. My prediction is that we'll get some version of this response here: only crazy people would believe us when we say that the Dems are intentionally destroying the country. That's not true, of course...though, with it being crazy and all, it is more likely that crazier people and stupider people will be more likely to believe it. But, given that the inflammatory claims are false, and that they erode the foundation of civility and trust that has been so important to us...and given that there are a large number of stupid and crazy people in the world...the rhetoric in question is irresponsible and obviously so. And those who are propagating it cannot avoid responsibility if/when somewhere someone does what they are, in effect, telling him that he ought to do.