IS REVOLUTION POSSIBLE?

In response to Nigel Jones's recent posting on Tunisia I wrote: "Can we really be that sure that by spring 2011 there will not be a string of social upheavals across Europe?" I never used the word "revolution" to refer to what has been taking place in Tunisia, nor did I use the same word to refer to what can take place in Europe. Nevertheless, Mr. Jones replied: "Jon Kofas (17 January) asked whether I can be sure that there will be no revolution in Western Europe by this spring."

The more serious question is whether what has been unfolding in Tunisia in January 2011 constitutes revolution, or whether the correct term that applies is "uprising" = popular defiance (violent and/or peaceful) against government that may or may not result in change of government, which change in government may or may not lead to a revolution = systemic change of regime, which may or may not lead to systemic changes in societal institutions.

The issue of a revolution in the future and what constitutes revolution has been covered before on WAIS, but I would like to revisit the meaning of some terms and concepts.
The word revolution means systemic or structural change in any institutional status quo, including the intellectual domain. The economic change in the status quo that took place in the 15th century (1300-1600 more accurately) during the Commercial Revolution represented a transition from localized rural economies to international urban ones that began to change the social structure as a result of mode of production change (social discontinuity).

The systemic change or change in the religious status quo of Western Christendom that took place in the 16th century in the form of the Reformation was a religious revolution. The systemic changes in science that took place in 17th century Europe are called the "Scientific Revolution." The Enlightenment that followed in the 18th century represented systemic change in philosophical (and value system) thinking, largely influenced by the Scientific Revolution. The Industrial Revolution that started in Britain in mid-18th century and spread to northwest Europe in the 19th century represented a radical or structural change toward mass production. The French Revolution along with many others that followed in Europe and around the world in the next two centuries altered the political status quo. The "Internet Revolution" of course represents a radical change in the manner people communicate.

Social unrest and social uprising do not constitute revolution, but it is possible that they could if institutional structural changes follow. The classic revolution is France 1789, which resulted in structural changes across all sectors of society, including cultural. By contrast, the American Revolution was a national movement for decolonization that did not alter the economic, social or cultural status quo. Edmund Burke supported the American Revolution because it was a war of independence that did systemically change societal institutions, but he vehemently opposed the French Revolution that wiped the slate clean with all institutions, violating the organic nature of societal structure (Romanticism influence) as Burke saw it, and created new institutions based on the ideas of the Enlightenment.

So far, Tunisia has not had a revolution. It all started with riots against a very corrupt regime in a country with immense poverty and wealth concentration. With the influence of the General Union of Tunisian Workers that organized anti-regime protests and forced President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali from power, the situation turned into an uprising against a one-party state whose economy was in the hand of the president and a handful of well-connected individuals. Initially the president was out but the rest of the regime remained, but it seems that the country is headed for broader government changes as the situation unfold. This does not qualify for "Revolution," although it is entirely possible that it could lead to one if the uprising continues and there are systemic institutional changes. That the entire affair is spilling over to other countries, as Al Jazeera is transmitting in its news coverage, is predictable of such events that have taken place in the past. Will social unrest in parts of Africa and Middle East lead to revolution? My guess is that at most there may be change in governments as in Tunisia.

Given that the word "Revolution" can be applied to any domain where systemic change takes place, and given that human beings evolve along with societal conditions, can we expect any kind of revolution in the future in any domain other than science and technology? Can it be argued with certainty that systemic change in the future--until the solar system fails to sustain life on this planet--will always be within an existing evolutionary organic system and within the status quo and never "revolutionary" that would end the existing political and social institutions and create a new ones? Those opposed to Hegelian historicism on philosophical grounds and those opposed to Marxian historicism on ideological grounds can only claim that simply by relying on larger historical trends or laws of history, it is impossible to predict when, how, what type, what social groups will be involved, and if societal systemic change will emerge from social discontinuity.

Nevertheless, history is a guide of how societal institutions were born and evolved, and history can be used to understand broader trends from which to determine how social discontinuity evolves and what are the dynamics that account for it. Social discontinuity is as inevitable as future revolutionary scientific and technological change. Social unrest and social uprisings may not necessarily signal the imminence of revolution, but they do represent at the very least the gap between the elites of political, economic, and social institutions and a substantial segment of the public that existing institutions no longer serve. After the prototype bourgeois revolution of France and the prototype proletarian Revolution of Russia, the question is what form will future revolutions assume, what social groups will be involved, when and how will social discontinuity take place?

UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY - is the US Authoritarian?

I agree with Alan Levine that the 'checks and balances' system (division and separation of branches) is one of the best features of the US Constitution designed to prevent concentration of power similar to what the mother country suffered before the Glorious Revolution. The question, however, is whether presidents throughout history have attempted to make the executive branch an 'imperial presidency' that goes beyond what the framers envisioned, and the degree to which recent presidents have succeeded. 

Arthur M. Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency" (1973) provided a sound Liberal critique mainly of how it has been possible by presidents (Nixon at the time Schlesinger was writing) to bend the Constitution and manipulate power in favor of the executive and at the expense of the other branches. Schlesinger's "imperial presidency theory" (a phenomenon that can be traced to Andrew Jackson) is now used interchangeably with the "unitary executive theory". Scholars usually associate the 'unitary executive theory' with Bush, although both Republican and Democrat presidents fit under this model, and the use of the new label is designed to make imperial presidency more 'Constitutionally-sounding' to the public.

In the past three decades, especially under George W. Bush, the 'unitary executive theory' has been used to justify added powers of the executive branch, particularly after 1996 when Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act. In short, the concerns that Schlesinger outlined almost four decades ago are not only alive and well today, but the executive branch has become more imperial than it was under Nixon who ultimately fell owing to abuse of power. The rise of the imperial presidency has been possible, in part, because the executive branch enjoys political (partisan) support from the judiciary and congress. Therefore, the theory of division and separation can translate into a reality of 'consensus politics' or 'emergency conditions' under an 'imperial presidency' that defines 'national interest'.

After 9/11, the executive branch became more imperial than at any time in history, as evidenced not only by 'Line Item Veto' but also by the McCain Detainee Amendment (legalizing use of torture) designed to protect citizens against terrorism, the USA Patriot Act, and NSA surveillance without a warrant as stipulated by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Spying on US citizens became legal as was torture of 'terror detainees' denied due process. All of this was carried out in the name of the unitary executive theory justified by 'the threat of terrorism' and an evolving political mindset that democracy can only be safe if it operates under quasi-martial law.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, the US has become less democratic and more authoritarian, while the media fully justify this curious evolution of American 'democracy' and the public appear for the most part to remain docile. Meanwhile, the executive branch justifies police-state methods that violate the civil liberties and rights of citizens because of the 'war on terrorism'. Not only did the Bush administration argue that the framers of the Constitution intended for the executive to have 'boundless powers' as commander-in-chief, but President Bush invoked 'unitary executive theory' more than 100 times, including to deny certain vital information to Congress, and to protect Cheney's Energy Task Force activities designed to exclude environmental scientists from the process, and to cater to the energy industry in which the vice president had investments. Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips, and other energy executives met with Cheney's Energy Task Force to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

'Unitary executive theory' served not only to justify the added powers of the executive and dilute the process of checks and balances, but also to line pocketbooks of administration officials with ties to the energy sector that made billions of dollars in the last decade, while the American people were left with a bill of an estimated $1 trillion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then, it was all worth it to fight the endless 'war on terrorism' that must be won!

During the early Cold War, the 'peddlers of crisis' from both political camps argued in favor of a strong executive branch because the 'Russian bear' threatened America's 'freedom and democracy', and by extension the threat extended to entire 'free (pro-US) world' that the US deemed under its umbrella of military protection directly or through alliances. The early Cold War justified denying civil rights to blacks and women until the civil rights movement and feminist movement exploded in the 1960s. Today, 'unitary executive theory' justifies an imperial presidency because of the 'war on terrorism' that potentially can cover any individual, group or country that the executive labels 'terrorist' - and the US has the influence to persuade many other countries to go along -usually, as long as they too declare their own 'war on terrorism' on their enemies.

The Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, were well aware that the executive branch would strengthen considerably in time of war, exactly as the case has been throughout history when wars have taken place. The question, however, is whether the framers of the Constitution intend for the president to become an imperial commander-in-chief that bypasses the other two branches of government in essential matters of public policy.

Would the framers approve of a permanent state of war such as the 'war on terror' that is now institutionalized, thus strengthening the executive branch on a permanent basis and violating the balance of power in government? Would the framers intend for the executive to use the office of the presidency as a vehicle to violate civil liberties and dilute the democratic process; to strengthen capital in general or certain companies that give generously to candidates at the expense of the entire social fabric; to invoke the 'unitary executive theory' in order to weaken environmental laws and strengthen oil companies; to weaken and usurp the functions of the other two branches of government; all of it in the name of 'national security' as the executive branch defines the term!

Given the massive concentration of power in the executive branch, given the 'war on terrorism' that has eroded civil liberties even as the 'Obama conceded' during the primary season in 2008, the social fabric rooted in pluralism and (18th century-style bourgeois) democracy, to what degree is the US a less authoritarian country than France that 'Freedom House.org' lists as one of the 25 nations becoming less democratic in 2010? Not that France is a model democracy today - President Sarkozy illegally expelled gypsies in 2010 and he has been accused of condoning authoritarian regimes.

But how does the US compare with France, or any EU member in the last decade, using the exact same criteria on civil liberties and constitutional guarantees? Is any EU member as authoritarian as the US, or is the US operating under 'unitary executive theory' much closer to regimes like Venezuela under Hugo Chavez whose policies are at least intended to prevent capital concentration and to be more benevolent toward the lower strata of society? Finally, would the framers of the Constitution approve of the US government today, or would they consider revising if not re-writing the Constitution to serve all citizens?

USA: SOCIOPOLITICAL POLARIZATION & ITS SOURCES

Is the source of America's sociopolitical polarization the two-party system, the media divided into liberal and conservative camps representing the two political parties,  the multi-ethnic and multi-religious, multiracial, and multicultural make up, evolving changes in social stratification owing to a declining middle class, the political economy, or a combination of all of the above?

Is sociopolitical polarization necessarily a threat to social integration in an open society, or does it enhance pluralism to have interest groups organized behind opposite camps (to the degree that they appear opposite in rhetoric, despite serving the same goals) that exacerbate identity politics and may cause disharmony? Finally, does sociopolitical polarization provide the pretext of pluralism and distract mass public opinion from the underlying source (s) of society's structural impediments to progress and decline of the middle class when seemingly opposite camps responsible for sociopolitical polarization serve the same political economy?

No one should be surprised that Sarah Palin and the army of TEA PARTY propagandists have gone on the offensive against segments of mainstream corporate-owned media that had the audacity to a) demand toning down extremist rhetoric; b) linking the Arizona massacre with the TEA PARTY's extremist rhetoric; and c) questioning the sanctity of GUN-OWNERSHIP! All of it, of course, part of a Democrat opportunistic scheme designed to capitalize politically on what the 'Arizona assassin' did; apparently acting entirely on his own, as Palin said, and never influenced by TEA PARTY fanatic rhetoric. In short, public officials have no responsibility for extremist rhetoric that an unbalanced individual may use as justification to carry out acts of violence.

When Palin used the anti-Semitic term 'blood libel', however, a term that has a long history dating to the Medieval era, she immediately attracted the attention of some Jews who were justifiably offended and expressed outrage. That the gunman's mom is Jewish is another issue that right-wingers and Anti-Semites will use to deflect attention from the essential issue of political violence.

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich jumped into the discussion, defending strong militaristic language as part of free speech, and stressing that the 'Arizona assassin' had left-wing books in his library, adding, “He was apparently an atheist. He was by no standard that I know of had any connection with any tea party of any kind.” Never mind that books found in the assassin's collection included a disparate collection  -  Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The  Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To
Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over
The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist
Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein
Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

This list reveals nothing out of the ordinary for any high school or college student, but then again, Newt always liked to tell THE TRUTH. In 1994 Newt, newly elected Speaker of the House, said on  Meet the Press that he  had evidence that up to a quarter of the White House staff were drug users. Few in the corporate media challenged such outrageous remarks from the Speaker whose goal was to always speak THE TRUTH.

Bill O'Reilly, one of the least credible right-wing opportunist-talking-heads, matched Newt's rhetoric criticizing "the far-left MSNBC line" and insisting that "The hatred spewed on that cable network is unprecedented in the media."  I had no idea that MSNBC, - co-owned by two of the largest corporations on earth - and GE investors was 'far left'. If that is indeed the case, all those multimillionaires owning the company must be dangerous Marxists posing a threat to America, a good deal of it which they own!

Rush Limbaugh came along and announced that in criticizing Palin, the TEA PARTY, FOX NEWS, and right-wing talkradio, "THEY" (anyone criticizing the aforementioned) need to remember "THEY ARE ACCUSING A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OF BEING ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER." For those who are not familiar with Limbaugh, let me assure you that he knows very well the majority of Americans (54% according to a CBS poll) are against the TEA PARTY (29% in favor). But then again, Rush like Bill O'Reilly has said and will say just about anything to entertain his audience, while laughing all the way to the bank. This is the same 'family-values Rush' who constantly criticized gay marriage and gays in general, but paid ELTON JOHN $1,000,000 to sing at his 4th wedding!  Shame-shame Rush, hiring Elton, when the OSMOND FAMILY could have added some heterosexual Christian 'family values' to your 4th wedding!

All of this shameless polarizing rhetoric immediately after the mass killings in Arizona and Rep. Giffords seriously injured and fighting for her life reminds me of the famous saying by Joseph Welch, head counsel for the US Army during the McCarthy hearings. On 9 June 1954, in response to Sen. Joseph McCarthy who accused one of Welch's young lawyers of having Communist ties, Welch replied:  "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness... Have you no sense of decency?"

During the early 1950s amid the heated nuclear arms race and US-USSR global competition for hegemony, the American political, military, and business establishment permitted Joe McCarthy to destroy the reputations and careers of many talented people dismissed as Communists. With the exception of high profile newscaster Edward R. Murrow, the media went along with the hysteria of McCarthyism and projected the images that the business, political, and military elites wanted projected, namely, that the alternative to rigid conformity to the Cold War ideology entailed BLACKLISTING and ruin for non-conformists in the land of pluralism. When McCarthy began to accuse people too close to the political and military establishment, the media that had raised him to a Cold War demi-god ended his days of glory.

Today (and since 1980) we have segments of the political and military, and above all the business elites that support political leaders they believe will swing public opinion toward conformity to keep the American people as docile as possible to all policies foreign and domestic. Naturally, the centrist segment of the media - the segment that Rush, Newt and others like them call far left-wing, tries to present a point of view that appeals to centrists.
Nevertheless, the goal they are trying to achieve the exact same one of conformity. Using Liberal ideology to counter the right-wing, the centrists provide a sense of legitimacy of a political system that presents itself as 'democratic' and 'pluralistic'.

Although the centrists embrace a more enlightened approach to a number of issues, especially social and cultural, both ideological sides present politicians, not the business elites behind them as the real villains for all calamities that befall society, of all problems, while all the success stories are invariably attributed to 'the heroes of business'. It is never the fault of finance capitalism or the business elites behind the political establishment even when they are caught in the act, but always of the politicians who failed to do their job on behalf of citizens. Never mind that financing for candidates comes mostly from business establishment that controls the media that can make or break a political candidate. 

Although party affiliation as related to social class is not nearly a factor in the US as it is in Europe, the US has been drifting toward polarization in the last 30 years. Sociopolitical polarization is more evident today than it was when the Reagan-Bush team came to Washington and contributed to that phenomenon. But is it the fault of the politicians seeking elected office at almost any price, the well-paid taking heads that propagate for one side or the other, or is it the source of polarization a political economy that has resulted in the socioeconomic polarization reflected in the harsh and divisive rhetoric of both sides as expressed by politicians and news analysts?

In direct and very subtle ways, McCarthyism is alive and well today, resurrected by the Reagan-Bush camp and kept alive by an institutional propaganda machine behind which is corporate America whose goal is to keep a population docile and conformist to existing institutions, to prevent radicalization arising from discontent in the political economy. From 1980 to the present, there is a noticeable trend toward bitter partisanship and disintegration of 'consensus politics' that has exacerbated sociopolitical polarization. Scholars do not agree on the source (s) of such a trend, nor do they agree on the beneficiaries. Given the declining living standards with the erosion of the middle class at a time that we have seen vast wealth concentration, the beneficiaries are clearly the financial elites that want the state to maintain the appearance of pluralism but in fact have Leviathan traits.

The irony about the American Leviathan is that just this morning, 13 January 2011, the watchdog group Freedom House, released a report listing 25 of 194 countries with declining levels of freedom, a list that includes France and Hungary, among the usual Middle East, African, and Latin American suspects. Naturally, the US is not on the list!

US v. SWITZERLAND GUN OWNERSHIP & VIOLENCE

When I was looking into sources for stats on gun ownership in different countries around the world, I was struck that Switzerland does in fact rank very, exactly as some defenders of US gun ownership claim. There are various sources for such statistics, and there may very well be some sources out there that contradict each other, and some may rank Switzerland higher than the US as far as gun ownership.

Some sources indicate that gun violence has escalated in Europe during the last two decades. Experts blame everything from waves of illegal immigrants to narcotics and other illegal activities, to high unemployment, rising socioeconomic gap and a value system rooted in self-indulgence and materialism.

Interestingly, Switzerland has a population of around 6 million, and it seems that one-third are gun owners - 600,000 of whom own automatic riffles and 500,000 pistols, according to one source at least. Let us assume for the sake of argument that indeed this is the case - let even say that Switzerland has more weapons per capita than the US, how do we explain that Switzerland as a very low crime rate not according to US standards, but any standard in the world? In a previous posting I argued the only rational explanation is the deeply-rooted culture of violence in America that is absent in Switzerland.

As far as weapons ownership in private hands, in 2007 US population just under 5% of the world's population is estimated to own between 35 and 50% of the world's population. This is according to the SMALL ARMS SURVEY. The following chart list the top five gun-ownership countries in the world.

No.	Country	Guns per 100 residents	Year	Comment
1	United States	90.0	2007
2	Yemen	61.0	2007
3	Switzerland	46.0	2007
4	Iraq	39.0	2007
5	Serbia	37.5	2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

CATEGORIES OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE

There are different types of politically and socio-politically motivated acts of violence, which I believe that it would be best to separate into distinct categories. The violence carried out in Tuscon, Arizona against Rep. Giffords falls into the same category as the political assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and King in the 1960 - before them Gov. Huey Long, President Abraham Lincoln, among others. To some degree, the assassination attempt carried out against President Reagan by a single person also falls into the same category, although John Hinckley was more like a character right out of Martin Scorcese's motion picture TAXI DRIVER. The violence carried out in Jonestown was cult-suicide violence that resulted in 909 dead did not specifically target Congressman Leo Ryan for his ideological perspective or political positions. Peoples Temples fanatics who were escorting Ryan and others on the transport plane killed the congressman, three journalists, a defecting Temple member, while wounding nine others. This was carried out because Ryan, a critics of cults including L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, was investigating the activities of the Temple/agricultural commune in Guyana that had become a cult posing a threat to the lives of US citizens. The violence carried out by McVeigh and Nichols in April 19, 1995 at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people did not target any specific politician. The McVeigh-Nichols bombing in Oklahoma City falls into the same broader category as 9/11. In both cases, one domestic the other carried out foreign operatives intended to drive across a political message by killing any number of people at random. Media publicity by making a big splash was the goal, not the assassination of an individual politician whose policies were deemed unacceptable. Racial, ethnic, and religious violence where people are targeted because they are a minority against which an individual or group  is targeting for extreme prejudice is yet another category of sociopolitical violence. Labor and student violence that starts in the form of protest but ends up violently in clashes with police and/or national guard is another form of sociopolitical violence. Finally, street gang violence carried out by youth gangs and organized crime groups also falls in the category of sociopolitical violence. Invariably, certain rival gang, the police, or some entity in the political establishment is the target of gangs and/or organized crime violence. In America's contemporary history, clearly 9/11 tops all categories of political violence in terms of its magnitude as a national tragedy and its impact on the nation. I doubt that the Arizona massacre will have the kind of lasting impact that 9/11 had on politics and society. Ernie Hunt citing A. Camus about the evil in the souls of men is appropriate to reflect, but Camus' observation seems to raise the question of whether people are born evil or if immoral society makes them so as Reinhold Niebuhr claimed. As much as I love the works of Camus, I would have to agree with Niebuhr whose pessimism led him toward a different direction than Camus to conclude that conflict and tension are permanent features of society and that power is the catalyst in claims between nations, races, and social classes.

AMERICA'S CULTURE OF VIOLENCE

Approaching the massacre in Arizona from very different perspectives, both Randy and Soraya have made valid points. Soraya is correct to stress that if the the assassin was a Muslim the entire nation would have raised hell about "Islamic Terrorism in our homeland" and the Obama administration would have suffered the political consequences. Politically, the US would have moved farther to the right, providing ample ammunition to TEA PARTY fanatics and anti-Islam elements of all shades in an already anti-Islam environment.

If the assassin was black or Hispanic, his identity would have been a major issue, whereas a white Anglo-Saxon male receives the fully justified label 'mentally ill' without the ethnic stigma attached. This is the reality of America, and in fact the reality of Europe, had this taken place in any European nation.

Randy makes the point that the Liberals and the Liberal media are guilty for promoting violence through their own aggressive rhetoric against their political opponents. To prove his points, he offers examples of statements that a number of Democrat politicians and commentators have made about right-wingers like Sarah Palin and organizations like the NRA, the organization that Liberals love to vilify. I agree with Randy that indeed this is exactly the case as he outlines it.

A mentally deranged individual (white Anglo-Saxon male) kills six people and injures 14, including a young elected official of Congress, and immediately the biased Liberal media takes advantage of the tragedy to bring down the TEA PARTY movement and vilify America's holiest institutions, namely, the NRA and the Republican party. How dare the Liberals (mis) behave in such biased manner amid a national tragedy, not realizing the Conservatives would never imagine to do so if the assassin was a Muslim or black and had carried out the exact same acts targeting a Republican congressman?

The reality is that the Liberal establishment will and it should take advantage of this tragedy just as the Conservative establishment would have done. That Rep. Giffords will live - thank God - the Democrats will definitely have an even stronger case against the TEA PARTY for the massacre in Arizona. Why would anyone expect the Liberal establishment to behave any differently than the Republican opposition? After all, we have a presidential election in 2012 and the Democrats proved weak in the November 2010 mid-term election.

In my view, the larger and the only issue is VIOLENCE IN AMERICA that transcends political parties; violence that has long historical roots; violence that is ubiquitous and it seems to be a part of how conflict is resolved, not merely by those who are mentally unbalanced and easily obtain a gun to shoot their way out of their misery, but by an entire country that has evolved increasingly into a police-military state owing to the war on terrorism and the meaningless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which the US has lost and have contributed to the global economic contraction.

Randy is right that violent rhetoric is a part of some Liberals and certainly of some rappers who use song as a vehicle to convey a message of social protest in a manner that glorifies violence,often for its own sake. VIOLENCE SELLS because it is a part of commerce - it is in video games that young children play, in schools, in the internet, motion pictures, TV that everyone watches, in best selling novels, in magazines, in newspapers (both Liberal and Conservative papers), in foreign wars that the US is engaged, in the war on terrorism, and in the manner the police treat minority suspects.

Violence is at the heart of American commercial culture.  An integral part of society, the CULTURE OF VIOLENCE injured 14 people, it killed the nine-year girl, the judge, and four other innocent people in Arizona.  In the past few decades, there have been many incidents of individuals - from postal workers to college students and unemployed men -  taking a gun (readily available) and deliberately or indiscriminately shooting at people for they are the products of a culture of violence it glorifies in direct and subtle ways.

If Randy Black is trying to find the real villain in this tragedy, he will not find him either in the Liberal or Conservative establishment, he will not find it in the NEW YORK TIMES or in Michelle Obama complaining about blacks' right to secure jobs merely because of their skin color instead of competing on merit. The answer to the transparent puzzle is in the deleterious culture of violence that characterizes America more than any other civilized nation on earth. At 90%, (no advanced country comes close)  the US has the highest per capita of gun owners in the world, and the highest prisoner population per capita in the world at 715 per 100,000, while Canada has 116 per 100,000, and Norway 64 per 100,000.
WHY?

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS: EXTREMIST RHETORIC - POLITICAL VIOLENCE

The attack on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six other victims falling to gunfire by an allegedly mentally disturbed young man may be an isolated 'TAXI-DRIVER' type episode. On the other hand, it may be an omen of what is to come with the TEA PARTY Republicans raising extremist rhetoric to the level of encouraging half-crazed individuals to commit political crimes, even against fairly moderate elected Democrats like Rep. Giffords.

Rep. Giffords has been a target of political violence for some time, as have other Democrats adamantly opposed to Sarah Palin and the TEA PARTY extremists. When the system of political consensus breaks down, as it has largely because of the TEA PARTY's resolve to use heated rhetoric that breeds violence, it is to be expected that some unbalanced individual suffering chronic or temporary emotional problems will emerge to cleanse America of its evil politicians by shooting indiscriminately at crowds. Extremist TEA PARTY rhetoric may not be the only reason for the deadly shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, but it certainly seems like the prime suspect at this juncture. The police investigation will soon provide more details.

America has not had a tragedy of this magnitude since the 1960s when the Kennedy brothers and M. L. King were assassinated. In the next few weeks many in the political arena will see the Arizona massacre as a political tragedy of the Kennedy-King type. The Gifford shooting that also left a nine-year old dead, will receive immense coverage and analysis in newspapers, magazines and blogs, all of it with the author's own ideological/political spin.

As tragic as this event has been for the family and friends of the victims, and for the entire country, it may actually result in something positive. The TEA PARTY and its 'hyperbolic' propagandists may be forced to tone down the rhetoric and be forced back into that large Republican tent, instead of trying to lead it to that abyss of right-wing Armageddon. If this does not happen and a few weeks from now the TEA PARTY leadership and its propagandists are back in full force with that philosopher-politician Sarah Palin leading, then we are in for a very mean political season until the next presidential race.

My prediction is that the mainstream Republican heavyweights will eventually force the TEA PARTY leadership back into the big tent. I also think that some of the very wealthy TEA PARTY donors may have second thoughts about associating with a group now tainted after the Arizona massacre. Mainstream Republicans  interested in consensus, will be concerned of spreading political violence and will be subject to attacks by Democrats. Inadvertently alienating potential Republican voters will be an issue for the mainstream Republicans. Such concerns will take precedence over all other issues - on policy, tactics, etc. - that TEA PARTY leaders currently have on the table after riding high in the wake of last autumn's congressional election.