Intolerance, Madness and Death

A few months ago, two recognized political comedians assembled close to 200,000 people in Washington under the slogan “Restore Sanity” during the harsh political debate — promoted by the right wing of the Republican Party, the tea party — leading up to the congressional elections.

A few days ago, a young, disturbed man, armed with hatred and a weapon, murdered six people in Tucson, Ariz., and left 16 others injured, including Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic representative who has been targeted, among other reasons, for her favorable position toward illegal immigrants in a state that recently adopted openly racist laws.

The incident has touched the United States. Among the dead is a 9-year-old girl, who was interested in the government affairs of her country and who attended the public meeting with the congresswoman to be able to speak with her. The little girl seemed marked by drama, after being born exactly on another painful day for the country up north: Sept. 11, 2001. A federal judge and four other people — who, like those injured, wanted to speak with the congresswoman — were also among the dead.

The murderer, Jared Loughner, a 22-year-old, shot Giffords from less than a meter and then opened fire into the crowd before being subdued by force. The congresswoman is currently in critical but stable condition.

What could be behind this demented act? Unfortunately, this is not the first such incident to take place in the United States, where the large firearm manufacturers, the National Rifle Association (NRA, for its acronym in English) and Republican politicians prevent the passage of any law intended to limit or control the sale and possession of guns. Thus Loughner, who was expelled from a learning center for his bizarre behavior, was able to acquire a semi-automatic weapon without much trouble. In the future, other madmen could carry out equally atrocious acts in schools, universities, restaurants and public offices, under the strange argument that firearms are not dangerous per se, depending on their use.

Nevertheless, in this case, the issue goes a step further. As we mentioned in the beginning, the levels of hatred and intolerance that people like Sarah Palin and her radical followers have introduced to the American political debate can be directly related to these types of actions. As clearly said by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, where the crime took place, “The state has become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry. … When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” To illustrate, on Mrs. Palin’s webpage, Arizona appeared as one of the states where Democrats must be defeated and is indicated as such with the symbol of a rifle crosshair. In fact, Giffords’ congressional office was attacked by vandals during the last campaign, and eight months ago a man accidentally dropped a firearm and was arrested at one of Giffords’ public events.

From this painful episode we can draw various lessons, beginning with Colombia, where the message, tone and virulence of those in power in government leave much to be desired. The only way to advance a civilized debate is through the healthy exchange of ideas and not by resorting to insults and offensive comments. On the contrary, the use of words that incite hatred and intolerance will over time result in the known saying: “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”