Political or Social? Thoughts on the Tucson Tragedy

I have not been writing much about events lately. There has been a lot going on in the world (there always is), but at a certain point, I became too disenchanted to engage in analysis.

It seems that the media is obsessed with political problems and their solutions. Of course, both the left and the right have been excited to spin the Gabrielle Giffords incident for political gain. Ultimately however, the shooting was a result of societal, not political, problems.

It is very likely that loose gun-control laws played a role in the shooting: Arizona's loose gun-laws meant that Loughner did not need a permit to carry a weapon in public, while loose enforcement of license-requirements meant that he could get a gun license and obtain a gun legally despite mental health and agression issues that should have been red flags and prevented him from doing so, while the new laws allowing 30-round ammunition means he fired that many more rounds (10-15 more, to be exact) before he had to reload - and it was the act of reloading that allowed him to be apprehended. Even Dick Cheney is saying that it may be time to go back to 10-15 round limits for civilians.

These loose gun-control laws however, would not have been an issue, were it not for the societal issues that led for Loughner to take advantage of them - whether those social issues are lack of adequate care for mentally ill, a violent society, or a society that takes political invective literally.

To put it another way: As a democracy, perhaps our loose gun-laws are merely a political manifestation of the state of our society - certainly it is the attachment of a loud and powerful group of Americans to their guns, and the lobbying they do, that prevents meaningful gun-law reform from getting passed in Congress.

There are two basic ways of looking at the tragedy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: 1. This was the work of a madman 2. This was due to violent political rhetoric. Both are social issues.

1. If this was the work of a madman, then we as a society must ask ourselves three questions:1. Does America have a higher rate of mental ilness and if so, why? 2. Did this man have proper access to mental healthcare/are we providing such access to mentally ill people? 3. How could this man have been allowed to be free if he was dangerous?

The last two questions are not identical. In the wake of the attack, people have been asking why this man was not institutionalized. The answer is very simple: In America, we have the concept of "least restrictive alternative" - one can only be locked up if a) they pose a definite danger to themself and/or others b) a less restrictive alternative would not prevent them from being a danger to themselves or others. Often, out-patient treatment and medication are enough to make the patient safe for her/himself and others. This makes the more salient question 2: Why are we as a society not providing adequate mental healthcare? Often, patients lack access to outpatient care, which can lead to a revolving door situation: The patient deteriorates to the point where they require hospitalization, is released the minute they don't, does not receive proper care outside the institution, so they detiriorate and are re-hospitalized, starting the cycle all over again. Loughner may have not required institutionalization - but he did require mental health services that he was not getting.

2. Loughner most likely had some mental problems - the question is to what extent. Did those problems prevent him from distinguishing right from wrong - an essential component of an Not Criminally Responsible mental health defense? It is possible that, though he had some problems, he still was enough in control of himself and in contact with reality to be responsible for his actions.

In any event, even a madman does not operate in a vaacum and may be influenced by the political and social climate around him - which is why Loughner's potential mental ilness and the violence of recent political rhetoric are not mutually exclusive.

The issue with the violence of political rhetoric however, is that ultimately, it is a social, not political, problem. It basically means that we as a society frame our politics in terms of violence, which must indicate an underlying tendency towards violence or desire for violence in our society - if not, then the violent rhetoric would be unsuccesful - it would not resonate with voters, and politicians would stop using it. Instead, it has been succesful, which is why it has increased - politicians have responded to voter attitude as much as voters have responded to politicians' invective.

True, the line between politics and society in a democracy is murky. Our media both shapes and is shaped by political rhetoric, and our society is both shaped by and shapes the media. But I find that the recent trend of pinning responsibility on politicians and governments, is disempowering, as well as inaccurate - surely no objective analyst can disregard the role of society, even though they may argue over the extent of that role.

This trend has also appeared in media and government analysis of two global conflict zones: Sudan and Israel.

Sudan recently had peaceful elections. The world is holding its breath, as Western governments and NGOs give themselves pats on the backs. The simple truth is however, these elections were successful in a large part thanks to Sudanese society, which was desperate to avoid war, precisely because their country has been ravaged by it for so many years. The true pat on the back should go to the Sudanese people.

Western governments also view events in Israel through a political lens: There are countless efforts to engage in political negotiations and come up with political treaties. There are very few efforts however, to change society, even though society is the place where peace starts. Western governments would be much better off supporting grassroots peace-efforts on the ground, and NGOs that work with Israelis and Palestinians to promote peace, then trying to impose a peace-deal neither side is ready for. Indeed, in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has engaged in real efforts to improve the economy and people's standard of living, violence has tapered off naturally, because the society is now concerned with its economic growth, and violence is bad for the economy.

Some of the most succesful NGOs, such as KIVA and Iqbal Quadir's efforts to provide individual Bangladeshis with cellphones, are so succesful precisely because they empower inviduals to change the society around them, rather than imposing change from the top. Often, the change each individual makes may seem infintisimal - one family, one community, one village - but it all adds up, and somehow, in its gestalt, the whole of the change made by these individuals is more than just the some of its parts.

In a democracy, changing politics means changing society. It is time to turn to NGOs like KIVA and the Grameen Bank, which won a Nobel Prize, to learn how to do so - and to understand that such change might happen gradually, one person at a time.