Why Was Gabby Giffords Shot?

The American right cannot be blamed for the shooting attack on the Democratic congresswoman. They blatantly tried to oust her; however, their way was legitimate.

I first met Gabby Giffords on Jan. 5, 2007. It was her inauguration day, after the eighth district of Arizona had sent her to the House of Representatives. A young woman with a dazzling smile and a multi-faceted life story, who was on her way to the top. She was once asked what would be the most interesting thing about her, that people don’t know, and she had difficulty choosing: Would it be the fact that she had competed in motorcycle racing, or perhaps the period of time when she had lived by herself in the Mennonite community in Mexico? Or perhaps the well-known fact that she has an astronaut spouse? At the moment, we should pray that she can add this unsurpassed detail: I survived an assassination attempt, shot at point-blank range.

We had already spoken briefly that day, when she came over for a few minutes to the festive reception in honor of new Jewish legislators. In that circle, from the 2006 elections, there were six in number, and she was the star. After the event, I wrote about her in similar words: “The new member of Congress, Gabrielle Giffords, is ‘the first Jewish woman from Arizona’ to be elected to the House of Representatives. She also, well, how should I put this … It’s always nice to remember that not all Jewish legislators are aging, balding, mustached men.”

Giffords has been elected to the House of Representative three times now. The first two times, it was more understandable; 2006 and 2008 were “Democratic” years. Like many other Jewish Democratic legislators, Giffords rode the wave. She won by a 10 percent margin, both times. But two months ago, in the 2010 elections, it became more complicated. In a Republican year, in a conservative district, Giffords was identified as an “at-risk” candidate, a candidate who definitely could lose. This is the reason Sarah Palin and the tea party people launched an attack on her. This is the reason they poured resources into the campaigns of her adversaries, and this is the reason Giffords received special support from her party.

Ultimately, Giffords beat the Republican candidate, but this time by a rather narrow margin: 1.5 percent, a little more than 4,000 votes. A Jewish Democratic legislator — but from the conservative side of the party. Giffords resolutely opposed initiatives to restrict ownership of personal weapons. She owned a gun herself.

Before Palin

Was the attempt on her life a political act? That’s a question for which there is no apolitical answer. The American left — and, seemingly, most of the Israeli media as well — were quick to blame instigation from the right, the tea party and Palin. This was clearly a political response, much more than the murder itself.

True, the map Palin distributed for the 2010 election was a “target” map, seen through the cross-hairs of a rifle. True, “It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between this tone and actual outbreaks of violence,” as James Fallows wrote yesterday in The Atlantic. True, there is also the question of why these shooters — the maniacs, the volatile, the enraged — channel their fury, as a rule, from the right toward the left. True, the right wing found itself on the defensive in the aftermath of this event.

But this does not mean the right is guilty of the deadly shooting in Arizona. It does not mean that the tea party is not a legitimate movement or that it is extreme, to the point of being a danger to society.

The leadership of the tea party, indeed, resorted to rude rhetoric — that’s politics. They also distributed a map with targets — not in good taste, but without malicious, homicidal intent. They wanted to defeat Gabby Giffords, not murder her. You can disagree with their political positions — perhaps it is prudent to disagree with them — but that is the attitude of angry voters. Not bloodthirsty ones.

One way or another, violence of the kind that erupted in Arizona sprouts on fertile soil when the economy is faltering. It flourishes in the atmosphere of a bitter ideological rivalry. It blossoms on the outskirts of society. This violence is not a brand-new or surprising phenomenon, reserved for the tea party movement or for the days of President Obama. It is a non-perishable product of the administration system, of the type of society and of the American way of life. It has always been there. Far earlier than Palin. And it will be there after her.