NYT's Bob Herbert: Examine Tucson Murders Within A Broader Context

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has written an interesting essay regarding the recent murders in Tucson, Arizona. Herbert argues that Americans must view the killings within a larger societal context of violence and murder.

Herbert uses several statistics to portray violence in the United States:

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.

Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.

Holding aside the unnecessary and chivalrous reference to "women and children," Herbert's analysis provides a sobering reality about the routinization of violence in the US.

Herbert's proposed solutions to this problem -- stricter gun controls and changing the glamorization of violence in the US -- probably fall short of the mark, however. While gun control could likely reduce some violent crimes, there are serious mental health and addiction issues that contribute to crime in the US.

Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between economic deprivation and criminal activities, including violent crimes. While this pattern does not mean that most poor people commit crimes, poor persons, who likely have untreated mental health problems, constitute a large percentage of violent offenders.

Herbert correctly argues that the media frenzy and outrage surrounding the Tucson murders will soon fade away into inaction: "The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it." The next high profile killing will likely spark the same predictable response.

NYT's Bob Herbert Blasts Democrats For Not Doing Enough to Create Jobs

While other analysts trace President Obama's woes to his senior staff, his lack of a "message" or his failure to bite off "small" policy initiatives, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a different explanation. Herbert, a staunch liberal and Obama supporter, contends that the Democrats have not done nearly enough to address unemployment and the economic woes that many Americans face.

Herbert does not have kind words for the Republican opposition, but he does let Democrats off the hook either. Here is a clip:

The talk inside the Beltway, that super-incestuous, egomaniacal, reality-free zone, is that President Obama and the Democrats have a messaging or public relations problem. We’re being told — and even worse, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are being told — that their narrative is not getting through. . . .

That’s just silly. People are upset because they are mired in economic distress and are losing faith that their elected representatives are looking out for their best interests. . . .

People know that the government that is supposed to be looking out for ordinary people — for working people and the poor — is not doing nearly enough about an employment crisis that is lowering standards of living and hollowing out the American dream. . . .

The Republican Party has nothing in the way of solutions to Americans’ economic plight. It is committed only to the demented policy of trying to ensure that President Obama and the Democrats fail.

But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans. . . .

The many millions of new jobs needed to make a real dent in the employment crisis are not going to materialize by themselves. Mr. Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that.

I agree that the Democrats have a "message" problem. I also vehemently agree that they have not done nearly enough for Main Street. As with the Republicans, saving the banks and big businesses are the priority for Democrats. There's the bipartisanship everyone claims to seek!

Can Obama Re-Inspire Voters?

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama seemingly could do nothing wrong. The media and his supporters denounced his reporters as "more of the same." Whenever he received new endorsements, they denounced his competitors. And he won the election with record voter turnout.

Those days seem like a distant past. Much of the glow surrounding President Obama has diminished. The economy remains sluggish. The political left feels that Obama has betrayed them. The media dissect everything he does, rather than offering effusive praise. And conservatives feel embolden by Republican victories in Massachusetts and New Jersey.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert -- one of Obama's strongest supporters -- argues that the president suffers from a "credibility gap." Herbert contends that Obama's inconsistencies on major policy issues could fuel additional voter discontent and confusion:

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.

Ironically, many media personalities and voters who supported Obama's candidacy said that they found his "non-ideological" style refreshing. Early this year, many media commentators, responding to liberal anger, praised Obama as a "pragmatist" and condemned progressives as ideologues.

I am inclined to agree with Herbert who finds Obama's lack of a firm commitment to issues a problem for him. By seeking to appease all sides and (especially) to abandon the liberal base of the Democratic Party, Obama comes across as a weak leader. With so much on the line, tonight's State of the Union Address should prove interesting.

Obama: War Is Still Hell

In February, President Obama authorized 17,000 additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. At the time, the Pentagon wanted 30,000 more soldiers, but the president said that he would revisit the issue later.

Later has arrived, and Stanley A. McChrystal, Obama's choice to wage war in Afghanistan, says that many more troops are needed. According to a New York Times article, McChrystal will ask for 10,000 to 45,000 additional troops.

With public support for the war on the decline, Obama faces a potentially volatile situation if he agrees to an additional troop surge. Obama, who ran as the "anti-(Iraq)War" candidate, has always advocated the rightness of the war in Afghanistan. But his liberal base has begun to question the war. According to recent polls, a slight majority of the country believes that the war has not been worth the costs. These numbers do not bode well for decisions to prolong the operation into its ninth year.

The Hard and Bitter Truth
On a more human touch, Bob Herbert's latest column reminds us that war is still hell. I particularly found the following passage of "The Hard and Bitter Truth" moving:

A friend of mine. . .sent me an e-mail about a young serviceman in civilian clothes whom she and her husband noticed as he talked on a public telephone in the Atlanta airport last week. He was 19 or 20 years old and quite thin. His clothes and his shoes were worn, my friend said, but the thing she noticed most “was the sadness in his eyes and his sweet demeanor.”

The young man was speaking to his mom in a voice that was quite emotional. My friend recalled him saying, “We’re about to board for Oklahoma for the training before we move out. I didn’t want to bother Amber at work, so please tell her I called if you don’t think it will upset her too much. . . .I miss you all so much and love you, and I just don’t know how I’ll get through this.”

At the end of the call, the serviceman had tears in his eyes and my friend said she did, too. She wrote in the e-mail: “I stood up and wished him good luck, and he smiled the sweetest smile that has haunted me ever since" (ellipses in original text).

Read the full column here: The Hard and Bitter Truth.

A Wise Bob Herbert Discusses What Happens "After Election Day"

I have used a few blog entries to challenge the increasingly popular belief among liberals that Obama's likely victory represents the demise of the GOP and social conservatism. I believe that one's relative comfort in society, determined by the extent to which he or she suffers from racial discrimination, sexism, homophobia, or economic injustice likely shapes and informs how the person views this subject. I have not found any commentary by persons of color, for example, which accepts the notion that Obama's election would mean that the nation has transcended conservatism, racism, and other social ills.

Today, Robert Herbert, a New York Times columnist, joins a growing group of progressive commentators who seek to inject a healthy dose of reality into contemporary liberal discourse. Herbert says that liberals need to focus their attention to what must happen "after election day," and he rejects the argument that merely electing Obama settles the score with conservatism:

Americans have to decide if they want a country that tolerates . . . debased, backward behavior. Or if they want a country that aspires to true greatness — a country that stands for more than the mere rhetoric of equality, freedom, opportunity and justice.

That decision will require more than casting a vote in one presidential election. It will require a great deal of reflective thought and hard work by a committed citizenry. The great promise of America hinges on a government that works, openly and honestly, for the broad interests of the American people, as opposed to the narrow benefit of the favored, wealthy few (emphasis added).

I agree wholeheartedly.

PS: I wrote this entry before the end of Election Day. If Obama actually loses, my argument applies with even greater force.

Related entries:

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas
2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But
Melodrama
Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S.
Liberals
Blacks Less Optimistic About a Coming Liberal Utopia
A Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep