Archive - Jan 9, 2011
Further Reflections on Blame, Responsibility and Accountability
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 19:05Earlier today, I wrote a blog post, Blame, Responsibility and Accountability where I mentioned a couple people that appeared to me to be justifying violent rhetoric in their posts online. I am having had a hard time trying to understand these views.
In that blog post, I wrote,
I retweeted what I thought was the best of the messages, only to receive comments from @AGNewHaven saying, “Shame on you for retweeting garbage like that” and “I am not sure where the line is-but foaming at the mouth calling people traitors and terrorists probably isnt it.”
Those messages have subsequently been deleted. He also added a couple comments to my blog. His first comment started off saying, “You retweeted something that called tea party members terrorists?” Actually, what I tweeted was “RT @mhelfenbein Tea Party = Terrorist Extreme Aggressive Party.” I did not say that members of the tea party are terrorists. Instead, I was repeating a theme that linked the rhetoric of some people held dear by members of the tea party to what I consider domestic terrorism.
Later, he writes, “What I object to is somehow suggesting that every member (of which I am NOT) every member of the Tea Party is a terrorist". Suggesting that a person should be shot, suggesting ‘second amendment remedies’, suggesting that you should make opponents afraid to come out in public, I believe constitutes terrorism. That does not say that members of the TEA party are terrorist, any more than it says that members of the GOP are grand or old.
He goes on to say, “People kill terrorists-are you suggesting people should kill tea party members?” As an opponent of the death penalty, I wouldn’t even say people should kill terrorists.
His next comment was that I “choice to misrepresent” him. I do not believe that I have misrepresented him. I certainly did not make any choice to misrepresent him. As I stated at the top of my blog post, I am having had a hard time trying to understand his view, as well as the view of the person on Facebook that appeared to be defending violent rhetoric.
In my attempt to make sense of his messages on Twitter I wrote, “While Mr. Cunneen may want to coddle criminals and stand with the shooter. I do not.” As a person that takes words very seriously, I want to reiterate what I said. I do not know what Mr. Cunneen wants to do. I still don’t, but presenting and exploring a possible hypothesis is not misrepresentation.
That said, Mr. Cunneen did send me a private email as well. Given that it is a private email, I’ll refrain from going into details. However, I will make a few general comments. I am a strong believer in our democratic process. I believe in open discussions. I believe that the best method of bringing about change is at the ballot box. However, I also recognize the importance of direct actions, including sit-ins, picket lines, boycotts, and other non-violent methods of exerting pressures on those in power to bring about change. To me, there is a very significant difference between a boycott and a shooting.
As such, I believe we should be boycotting those that broadcast or defend violent rhetoric. Mr. Cunneen’s responses on Twitter sounded to me as if he were defending violent rhetoric. In his private email to me, he presents a different view and I no longer believe that he is defending violent rhetoric. As such, I no longer see a reason to boycott his businesses.
Blame, Responsibility and Accountability
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 10:30Quickly after a young white man shot at a congresswoman in Arizona, the political rhetoric heated up. Everyone started pointing to the map produced by Sarah Palin’s PAC which included Congresswoman’s Gabrielle Giffords district in the crosshairs. They pointed to Senator McCain’s defense of the use of language of gun violence in ‘targeting’ Rep. Giffords saying the it is common political speak to talk of battleground states and targeting districts. They retweeted messages from Palin about ‘reloading’.
I retweeted what I thought was the best of the messages, only to receive comments from @AGNewHaven saying, “Shame on you for retweeting garbage like that” and “I am not sure where the line is-but foaming at the mouth calling people traitors and terrorists probably isnt it.” They unfollowed me, and I unfollowed them, including a tweet encouraging people not to use AlphaGraphics in New Haven or Cunneen Fundraising.
While Mr. Cunneen may want to coddle criminals and stand with the shooter. I do not. Instead, I stand with Speaker Boehner who said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve".
We need to stand up and say that shooting members of Congress, nine year old children and Federal Judges is wrong. We also need to look seriously at a political system that would encourage someone like the shooter to take the action he did.
The most obvious person to criticize is Sarah Palin. It is easy to demonize her. Her words are the most blatant, wide spread, and offensive, but she is simply a symptom of the problem. There are many that have suggested ‘Second Amendment Remedies’. It is a sad commentary on our country that this has become a part of the current political lexicon.
Yet even an effort to start talking about curtailing the dangerous rhetoric brings the red herring about “not playing the blame game”. My wife wrote on Facebook
Tired of people saying "blame isn't productive". We need to stop saying that and start holding people accountable. There are some actions that are not acceptable and where blame is indeed appropriate.
I was surprised to see a response saying
The shooter was doing his best to hold people accountable. Do we want to emulate that method?
I suggested that there is something wrong with those who believe shooting public officials is an acceptable way of trying to hold people accountable.
I went into a long discussion about how I hope that all of us should seek to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare".
I touched briefly on two Supreme Court Cases, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that give guidance about acceptable speech and ended off with
Now, on to the specific topic of blame. Dictionary.com defines the verb blame as "to hold responsible; find fault with; censure". To me, holding people responsible for their actions is a core part of our civic responsibility. it is essential to insuring domestic tranquility.
In terms of detrimental behavior, the first step, is for a person to recognize their own failings, in short to be be held accountable or responsible and accept blame for what they have done.
Based on this understanding of personal growth, I would suggest that people saying "blame isn't productive" are using self defenses to avoid looking seriously at any failings in their own lives that are impeding our common goal of a more perfect union.
Yet even with this, the red herring about “blame” reflects a deeper problem. We live in a society that focuses on freedoms, but not responsibilities. We see politicians seeking protect free speech, but allowing large corporate donors to remain anonymous. We live in a political landscape that eschews blame, responsibility and accountability. It is not surprising that things have spun so far out of control.
