Another Congressman (From My State) Receives Death Threats

Guess what party he belongs to?

From the DoJ:

"CHARLES TURNER HABERMANN, 32, of Palm Springs, California, was arrested this morning after being charged by federal criminal complaint with threatening a federal official. HABERMANN is alleged to have made two expletive-laden, threatening phone calls to the Seattle office of Congressman Jim McDermott on December 9, 2010. In the first call recorded on the office answering system, HABERMANN threatens to kill Congressman McDermott, his friends and family. In the second call HABERMANN says he will hire someone to put Congressman McDermott “in the trash.” HABERMANN was interviewed by the FBI on December 10, 2010, regarding the calls to Congressman McDermott, and another threatening call made to a California Congresswoman. HABERMANN is expected to make his initial appearance today on the 3:00 p.m. calendar in federal court in Riverside, California."

This congressman, who was a practicing psychiatrist for 20 years before getting involved with politics, was interviewed by the Seattle Stranger in the wake of the Arizona shooting last week and had this to say:

Was he surprised, given the tone of American political discourse, that the shooting occurred? “I can’t say I was surprised," McDermott said. "I can’t say that I expected it, or that I had any inkling of anything, but knowing what I know professionally... As I’ve watched the political process over the last couple of years, I’ve been troubled a number of times, knowing that there are people—from a professional standpoint I know there are people out there—that there are people being stirred up by this."

Does he think it's reasonable to suspect that heated political rhetoric may have contributed to Loughner's alleged actions? “This happened, not because of Gabrielle Giffords, but because somehow she became not a human being," McDermott said. "She became an object. She was dehumanized. And once you start doing that to people, you can do awful things to people who are dehumanized—that’s the troubling aspect to this sort of rhetoric. You see it and you say, 'Man, you’re just egging people on.' All this stuff about 'Take my country back'—all these things. Somehow we have stopped having the ability to sit down and talk.”

Any other specific rhetoric that he's found troubling? How about the Sarah Palin target map that's been much discussed in the last few days? "People can judge for themselves whether things are good or bad," McDermott said. "But I would say that anything that incites people to think that it’s alright to hurt somebody is not within the pale of acceptable rhetoric. And I really find there has been a general coarsening of the discourse in this country over the last ten years. To pick out any particular thing, I think, is not useful. Everybody’s got to stop.”

Typically, efforts to politicize tragedies like this make me want to vomit, and, it should be added, this shooter in Arizona does appear to be an apolitical, mentally disturbed person. However, that doesn't stop Rush Limbaugh from claiming that he's obviously a Democrat "because he liked Mein Kampf," or Democrats from citing Sarah Palin's now-infamous target map. That being said, whether it impacted this person or not, it is simply a fact that the dangerous, violent rhetoric is coming predominantly from one side of the political spectrum. It is an anger of impotence, greed, lust for power, and an absolutely childish need to get what one wants all of the time. Compare the worst things that Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Jim Boehner have said about Democrats and the worst things that Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have said about Republicans and you will see a completely different rhetorical spectrum. On the one hand you have Glenn Beck saying, "I think I'm going to kill Michael Moore, I wonder if I could do it alone or if I need help" and on the other you have pointed, though often angry, critiques about someone else's inability to govern effectively. Anger itself is not the problem (there's obviously plenty to be angry about where American politics are concerned), and can in fact be a good thing when pointed in the right direction. What's toxic is the mix of misguided anger and violent rhetoric. Lest you think that Republicans have learned from their mistake, and are prepared to scale back the violence and hate, Sarah Palin is here to squash your hopes:

"It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today."

A more disgusting analogy, I could not imagine. But why should we be surprised? She created the website with bullseye targets over Congresspeople's offices DAYS after a string of Democrats' (including Gabrielle Giffords) offices were vandalized, and when some of those Senators themselves were receiving death threats, with the title "Don't Retreat, Reload!" written in every notice about it. This is all that people like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh have going for them, so don't expect them to ever back off. With that in mind, I don't know what the end game is here. We'll see, I guess. But, once again, it's very clear that this is not simply a "everyone needs to be more careful" situation, as the media and politicians would have you believe. The scales are not balanced, and the culprits are very easily identifiable. If there is a way to root out the messages of violence, and to prevent more tragedies like the Arizona shooting, it is not by letting the progenitors of that message off the hook.

Edit: Here is an excellent article by Andrew Sullivan on Palin's reprehensible response to the tragedy. Most appalling: her use of the phrase "blood libel" to characterize her critics. I couldn't bring myself to watch the video of her actually saying these things, so if you've got a stronger stomach than I do, let me know what you think.