Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment On Violent Rhetoric And The Giffords Shooting

In a special Saturday episode of Countdown, spurred by the mass shooting that claimed six lives and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords clinging to life, host Keith Olbermann declared an end to violent political rhetoric. In doing so, he ran through a laundry list of conservative examples of same, plus one of his own, and while critics may paint this as merely an opportunistic attempt to bludgeon those with whom he disagrees, his overarching theme is worth serious consideration.

To that end, if you’re inclined to dismiss this oration based on a lack of balance, pretend for a moment that he included examples of liberals using “target lists” and bullseye imagery, and consider the premise of his argument.

Here is Olbermann’s “Special Comment,” from MSNBC: (Transcript here)

The remark Olbermann refers to, for which he later apologized to our own Rachel Sklar, is at about the 3 minute mark in this clip, where he tells Howard Fineman that the Democrats’ solution to Hillary Clinton was “Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

As Rachel Maddow says, this doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, so try to stay with me on this. Any fair-minded person would have to acknowledge that this tragedy, coupled with Rep. Giffords’ inclusion on Sarah Palin‘s “crosshair map,” naturally leads one to connect the two, at least cognitively. This is especially true given the fact that Giffords herself spoke out about the use of that imagery.

It is also true that the “crosshair map” was grossly irresponsible. While Olbermann talks about rethinking the use of terms like “targeting” in electoral politics, the image of crosshairs is a considerably more on-the-nose evocation of assassination than that loose metaphor. It’s arguably worse than the use of bullseyes, which are inert representations of a target, rather than the interactive tool used in targeting. For all of those reasons, she shouldn’t have used it, and was rightly condemned for it. Despite all that, I doubt anyone thinks her intent was to incite violence, and her refusal to change it was likely a stubborn attempt to reinforce that point.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas immediately tried to hang this crime on the “American Taliban,” coincidentally the name of his book, but it turns out he also employed some uncomfortable rhetoric on Giffords’ district. He put her on his “Target List,” bolded for emphasis, and used the “bullseye” metaphor, as well. It’s not exactly the same as what Palin did, but given today’s events, it is ample cause for reflection.

It is here that Keith Olbermann has a point. When passions run as high as they do in politics, we should all take deep breaths and think about what we’re saying. When a tragedy like this occurs, so closely paralleled by our political disagreements, it is entirely appropriate to reflect on our own inability to recognize the humanity of those with whom we disagree.

But it’s also important to recognize that these were the actions of a lunatic, and even if the alleged shooter ends up saying, “I did it because of Palin’s map,” or “Markos Moulitsas painted the bullseye for me,” they will still be the actions of a lunatic. Only a lunatic opens fire on a crowd of people at a supermarket, and he doesn’t do it out of a failure to appreciate nuance and metaphor.

So, while we should continue to police irresponsible statements like Sharron Angle‘s “2nd Amendment remedies,” or Keith Olbermann’s own Hillary Clinton beatdown scenario, or Glenn Beck‘s Pelosi-poisoning fantasies, there is a place for violent imagery in politics. In fact, it’s on Keith Olbermann’s show. Every night, Olbermann introduces the best segment of the show by saying “Get out your pitchforks and torches…”

The line is a reference to the frightened, angry villagers in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and is clearly meant to be ironic, just as Palin’s map was clearly meant metaphorically. That some metaphors are in poorer taste than others is a fact that should be governed by their merits, not the ability of lunatics to discern them.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.