The Tucson Shootings: Analysis Comes Later
Published in der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 14 January 2011
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
(Germany) on 14 January 2011
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by June Polewko.
Americans wanted to hear comforting words after the shootings in Tucson. Barack Obama understands that; Sarah Palin doesn’t.
People have their own standards as to what national leaders should and shouldn’t say in times of great upheaval. That’s part of each society’s culture and tradition. Had Barack Obama given his Tucson memorial speech in Erfurt or Winnenden following the mass murders there, he probably wouldn’t have been celebrated as a miracle healer. There would have been complaints: Wasn’t the religious pathos overdone? Why did he absolutely refuse to talk of political causes and their consequences? America’s lax weapons laws, the glorification of guns and the cutbacks in social programs for the mentally ill like Jared Loughner. All these would have been pointed out.
Not to mention the language of violence in U.S. politics, always quick to resort to the vocabulary of hunting, warfare and annihilation.
But Obama was addressing Americans who, so soon after such a tragedy, expect to hear words of soul healing, not soul searching. At times like these, the president has to be more pastor than politician. But along with his rhetorical skills, he also shows one weakness: Obama impresses you with his intellect. Compared to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush – nearly impossible for Germans to grasp — Obama lacks emotional conviction. He never sheds tears; showing pathos has to suffice.
The political debate will follow and Obama will find it useful precisely because he didn’t engage in it too soon. That was shown in the first five days after the shooting. Premature conclusions boomeranged, at least in the United States. The rash interpretation advanced by the Tucson Sheriff who blamed the incident on heated political rhetoric and lax weapons laws sounded acceptable at first, especially since the words came from a man sincerely concerned about his country; a man speaking from experience and conviction. But that caused an outbreak of sharp criticism. The country wanted to hold that all inside for the moment, and further investigation undermined his verdict in any case. There was no obvious connection between the shooter and the tea party movement or to Sarah Palin. There were, however, many indicators of Loughner’s growing rage toward Gabrielle Giffords.
Obama understands his countrymen. Palin does not. She was presumptuous in opposing Obama on the very day of the memorial service as if she were already running for president against him in 2012. And her choreography missed the mark as well. Her approach invoked all the trappings of patriotism: the flag, the references to God and the Founding Fathers. But both she and her handlers lack the intellectual depth for that. How could she possibly claim after the attack on Giffords, a Jew, that criticizing Palin was tantamount to a charge of ritual murder?
Obviously, Palin’s thought processes always follow a with-me-or-against-me pattern, but in any case, she always comes first. She doesn’t understand the difference between real pathos and phony posturing. And unless she learns that, she doesn’t stand a chance against Obama.
People have their own standards as to what national leaders should and shouldn’t say in times of great upheaval. That’s part of each society’s culture and tradition. Had Barack Obama given his Tucson memorial speech in Erfurt or Winnenden following the mass murders there, he probably wouldn’t have been celebrated as a miracle healer. There would have been complaints: Wasn’t the religious pathos overdone? Why did he absolutely refuse to talk of political causes and their consequences? America’s lax weapons laws, the glorification of guns and the cutbacks in social programs for the mentally ill like Jared Loughner. All these would have been pointed out.
Not to mention the language of violence in U.S. politics, always quick to resort to the vocabulary of hunting, warfare and annihilation.
But Obama was addressing Americans who, so soon after such a tragedy, expect to hear words of soul healing, not soul searching. At times like these, the president has to be more pastor than politician. But along with his rhetorical skills, he also shows one weakness: Obama impresses you with his intellect. Compared to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush – nearly impossible for Germans to grasp — Obama lacks emotional conviction. He never sheds tears; showing pathos has to suffice.
The political debate will follow and Obama will find it useful precisely because he didn’t engage in it too soon. That was shown in the first five days after the shooting. Premature conclusions boomeranged, at least in the United States. The rash interpretation advanced by the Tucson Sheriff who blamed the incident on heated political rhetoric and lax weapons laws sounded acceptable at first, especially since the words came from a man sincerely concerned about his country; a man speaking from experience and conviction. But that caused an outbreak of sharp criticism. The country wanted to hold that all inside for the moment, and further investigation undermined his verdict in any case. There was no obvious connection between the shooter and the tea party movement or to Sarah Palin. There were, however, many indicators of Loughner’s growing rage toward Gabrielle Giffords.
Obama understands his countrymen. Palin does not. She was presumptuous in opposing Obama on the very day of the memorial service as if she were already running for president against him in 2012. And her choreography missed the mark as well. Her approach invoked all the trappings of patriotism: the flag, the references to God and the Founding Fathers. But both she and her handlers lack the intellectual depth for that. How could she possibly claim after the attack on Giffords, a Jew, that criticizing Palin was tantamount to a charge of ritual murder?
Obviously, Palin’s thought processes always follow a with-me-or-against-me pattern, but in any case, she always comes first. She doesn’t understand the difference between real pathos and phony posturing. And unless she learns that, she doesn’t stand a chance against Obama.