The rush to judgment

What do you say after something like this?

The old answer was nothing, at least for a decent interval.

The new answer is everything, right away.

When U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot and six others killed in Tucson, it took literally moments for politicians and pundits to start blaming each other. We’ve carried some of that chatter on these pages because it was and is representative of the conversation going on, and we thought you should know. We also carried others urging caution against rash conclusions.

Nevertheless, I’m sorry. Not for printing the finger-pointing pieces, but that this national conversation of ours has gotten so counterproductive, so destructive.

I’m not talking, for once, about the vitriol among our pundits and increasingly among our politicians. I’m talking about the rush to judgment, the lack of internal governors on what we say and when we say it.

The New York Times has been rightfully criticized for jumping, within hours, to the conclusion that the martial language of the right wing led to the shooting. It was an assumption unworthy of a thoughtful editorial board. Not because the tone of the right wing and the left aren’t worth criticizing. They certainly are. But because Jared Lee Loughner’s motives are so occluded by what appears to be a thorough mental illness that we may never understand them. Paul Krugman, a columnist for The Times, sadly connected similar dots.

That was all it took. By the middle of the week, Rush Limbaugh was claiming Democrats supported Loughner and Sarah Palin had accused folks criticizing her and others of “blood libel.”

Well, now. I’ll take as reasonable that Palin was not comparing herself to generations of Jews persecuted and murdered for a lie. Even so, it’s hard to see a way past that kind of talk — and the talk that preceded it this week.

If The Times’ editorialists and others actually believe the tea party set the table for Loughner, even if indirectly, then there is nothing left to say. If Sarah Palin and her supporters truly believe critics are persecuting her, then there’s no changing their minds.

To their great credit, most of the nation’s responsible leaders have risen above all this. President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have struck similarly noble notes, appealing to their countrymen to remember the dead and that we are all in this together.

But it is a hard thing to be heard over the din.

Once upon a time, a national tragedy inspired us to unite. This one might’ve shocked us into desperately needed reforms like a commitment to care for the mentally ill, or restrictions on who can buy a high-capacity clip, equipment that clearly contributed to the savagery of the Tucson attack.

This awful episode has instead led to an utterly narcissistic argument over who’s being treated worse by their enemies, liberals and conservatives. The relentless attempts at logical jujitsu (if you criticize me, you are trying to censor me! why don’t you see the sins on the other side?) are both tiresome and unseemly, especially when the dead are unburied.

Who, it might be asked, cares?

Too much of this week’s discourse has not been directed at any sort of conclusion, any sort of reform. It’s not even designed to persuade. It is the purest kind of American dog-whistle speech, serving only to inflame opponents and inspire supporters. It is entirely political, entirely partisan, which is to say entirely divisive. And, at a time like this, it is beneath a functioning republic peopled by compassionate citizens.

Six people are dead. More than a dozen were wounded. Among the dead was a nine-year-old girl, a 9/11 baby. She is the victim here, along with a congresswoman and her aides, a federal judge and many bystanders.

This is not the time for politics.

There was a time when we knew that.

Donald Luzzatto is The Pilot’s editorial page editor. E-mail: donald.luzzatto@pilotonline.com.