On Tolerance

As is known, on that day, the armed gunman opened fire in an attack on a meeting that Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was having with constituents. She was seriously wounded in the head. Six other people were killed, and 13 received wounds of varying degrees of severity. Among those killed, in particular, were a district judge, a pastor and a nine-year-old girl, who, as the press later learned, was one of 50 American children born on 9/11, the day that changed modern America. [Note: The girl was actually one of 50 featured in the book “Faces of Hope,” as there were more than 50 born on that day.]

The gunman’s main target was Gabrielle Giffords herself. She received a very serious injury. A bullet entered the back of her head and exited through the front, striking the part of the brain responsible for speech. Today the Congresswoman is going to rehabilitation, although doctors warn that the recovery of patients with such injuries is drawn out over many months, and they cannot guarantee a complete recovery of brain functions. Today, all of America is keeping track of her treatment. President Barack Obama took part in a ceremony in memory of the victims of this tragedy, and he gave a heartfelt speech. He spoke warmly and in detail about each of those killed, especially about the young victim whose organs, removed for transplantation, had already saved the lives of several ill children. The president stated that what exactly gave rise to the shooting was unknown, but he appealed to people not to search for simple explanations to that question. He said that the forces that are dividing Americans are not as powerful as the forces that unite them. “We may not be able,” Obama said, “to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.”

Obama recognized that the political and social discourse in the U.S. has become so polarizing over the last decade — that everyone seeks to lay the entire blame for existing problems on those who think differently from themselves. We, Obama said, should stop and make sure that our words heal and help solve problems, not cause more wounds and aggravate the situation. The president’s words were the result of discussions going on in American society regarding political discourse. The thought is that political discourse that contains personal attacks or is too heated, aggressive, etc., can cause some constituents to become infected by aggression that can lead to violence against political opponents, as was seen in the case of the Arizona shooter.

Actually, the renowned American tolerance, patience, and respect for an opponent, a different opinion, etc., came under a great threat under the conditions of the war against terrorism, especially after 9/11. These qualities began to disappear before your very eyes. Today, America is becoming less tolerant and more aggressive. Aggression outside the country inevitably leads to an increase of it within. The aggressiveness of the national elite in the struggle for power and influence directly manifests itself in public attitudes in the country. And as the Arizona events showed, this can become, or already has become, a problem for U.S. domestic security.

It is for this reason that many in the U.S. today are talking about the need to revamp the style and manner of traditional debates, as well as the existing rules of political contests. They are talking about the need to return to a time when respect for an opponent was not only demonstrative but real, and was shown by the fact that his opinion was considered to be no less valuable and relevant than the opinion, let’s say, of the public authority. They are talking about the fact that the opposition is not dumber than the authority just because it is the opposition. Americans voted for the losing politicians also, and their opinion deserves to be considered. In other words, today America is undertaking an attempt to change the trend of its domestic political discussions, for it is becoming obvious that without this change, national security and internal unity in the U.S. will be more and more on the decline.

Of course, the democratic political culture in America has great, deep traditions. American politicians learned long ago to work with the people, with constituents, and with public opinion. Here, pure political correctness reigns. However, within the elite itself, where there is continual fighting for power, influence and financial opportunities, the situation has always been different. The latest election campaigns set record after record in the area of smear campaigns, mudslinging, mutual accusations and personal attacks. Each new election cycle brought out even more dirt and aggressiveness from political opponents, who effectively influenced the voters, turned the election campaigns into real shows and helped win elections.

Certainly, aggressiveness and personal dimensions add no small amount of spice, flamboyance and even specificity to the political contest, which is by no means unimportant when television and other media sources constantly follow all of the politicians. However, as many Americans are now coming to understand, the traditional and frequently highly fascinating political show can easily infect viewers, some of whom will come to receive it as a call to violence, to the need to destroy political adversaries and people who think differently, including with the use of weapons. It is for this reason that the Arizona tragedy evoked such a major resonance in society and became a source of nationwide debates.

I believe that the current conversations in the U.S. about the national political elite (that they carry at least partial if not a great deal of responsibility for public attitudes in the country and for the breaking down of the principles of respect toward an opponent, tolerance and attention to other opinions) display the accountability of the American political class, and an understanding of their role in providing security both for the country and for their individual citizens. Obama himself called for this, although many in the U.S. find him guilty of political aggressiveness and excessive stubbornness, which were revealed in the attempts to pass his political program through the legislature. This was especially the case when the issues were immigration reform, reform of U.S. financial institutions and health insurance reform, which split American society and led to fierce debates between its supporters and opponents that have not yet ended.

Incidentally, some of the observers believe that a direct reason for the Arizona tragedy was the Democrats’ position on the question of immigration — an important one for the state, which borders Mexico.

I believe that the given situation is not uniquely American. It is also worthwhile for Russia, which today is trying to comprehend the reasons and consequences for the latest savage terrorist act, to ponder how the morals and manners of its political class influence the conditions in the country and public opinion, and how they influence those people who observe politics from the sidelines — especially since traditions of tolerance and leniency in Russia are much weaker than in the U.S. or Western democratic nations. These, in particular, should determine how accountable its authority is.

At least that is how it appears to me from Washington.