Open thread: Outrage

Posted at 8:16 PM on October 3, 2006 by Bob Collins (14 Comments)

It's probably just me but I'm trying very hard to keep separate two aspects of the Congressional Page Scandal of 2006 (not to be confused with the Congressional Page Scandal of 1983): the very real concern over protecting young people vs. the very real reality of attaining or holding onto political power.

Here's where I'm getting confused.

We've had news conferences and miles of type written in blogs and such; and justifiably so.

But...

There have been not one, not two, but three shootings in this nation's schools in the last week, the latest involving the executions of four five children ordered to stand at the blackboard at an Amish school in Pennsylvania.

I can't find a single candidate for Congress or a sitting member of the honorable House who seems to have stepped out into the fresh air to say a few words about it. Nothing (if you have a link, by all means please provide it)

So here's the question for discussion below: how do politicians decide what to be outraged about? How do we establish the life-and-death urgency of an issue?

I noted earlier that newspapers in Europe had front pages with the school killings. This country's newspapers featured the Foley case. Both legitimate stories, of course. (Disclaimer: I'm really torn up by the school shooting. I'm merely disgusted at the Foley affair.) Two cases. Both -- sort of -- about protecting kids. How do they choose?

But as Democrats issue their proclamations about Republicans and Republicans issue their proclamations about Democrats, I wonder if it's not worth taking a moment to step back from the emotion of politics for a look at ourselves. What do we see?

Comments (14)

My first answer to your question was: Politicans get outraged about anything that the media will report on. And I was going to add that this relationship between the media and politics is problematic for both parties involved, since sometimes the outrage becomes the story, or the reporting triggers the outrage. It has the potential to become a meaningless self-centered cycle.

But you make a good point that nobody has gotten worked up about the Amish school shootings. Which leads me to my second answer: Politicans get outraged about things which can have political leverage -- either leverage over another party or leverage over their co-lawmakers to try and change their minds about the importance of a particualr issue (such as police brutality).

As a former page for the Minnesota House (never molested) I've got to watch a lot of politicans, and I know that the vast majority of the local ones are sincere, on both sides. Sure there a few empty egomaniacs, but for the most part they are trying to change how our governmnet works becasue they've identified problems with our civic institutions. It's not an easy job, (doesn't pay well, long hours) but its difficult becasue it's so difficult to convey your beliefs, opinions, and policy ideas to a busy, mostly inattentive public. You have to admit that a little bit of outrage helps get your message out.

That said, I'm not so sure about your contention that the Foley scandal is dominating the national frontpages at the expense of the schoolshooting story. I challenge you to find a front page where this is the case. (One of the problems with newspapers on the internet is that the frequent updating of homepages makes this kind of headline weight hard to gauge.) Sure Foley is dominating the political blogs, but that's to be expected. If the psychotic killer had been the head of the US House Committee to Protect Schoolchildren from Gun Violence (or COPSGUV), it'd probably be a whole different ballgame.

Posted by Bill | October 3, 2006 8:47 PM

That said, you're right that nobody is campaigning about gun violence, though Michael Moore made a pretty good movie, filled with outrage, about this very topic.

I'm guessing that no Democrat wants to pick a fight with the NRA right before an election...

What's your take?

Posted by Bill | October 3, 2006 8:52 PM

My take? I honestly don't know what to make of it.

But if a politician comes out and advocates locking the doors (from the outside) when school is in session, I might vote for him/her just on the basis of having some common sense.

A big hairy deal on gun control will go nowhere. We know that. Then politicians are just using dead girls for their own gain and.... I get annoyed by that.

There are times -- at least for me -- where you just want to be together with other people and tell each other that we can make things better. You don't want to fight about what you fought about before -- politics mostly -- you just want to be together to get strength from each other to realize that things can and will be better. Sept. 11 was like that. These school shootings are like that to me.

But I'm guessing no politicians felt like getting together with their opponents yesterday and singing "God Bless America."

Posted by Bob Collins | October 3, 2006 9:08 PM

It's an excellent observation, Bob.

Just to add to what others have said, the shootings are a seemingly random tragedy that people feel helpless about. There's no good place for a politican - or anyone - to direct outrage. In a free society, someone might eventually go crazy with a gun. It's a deeper problem without obvious solutions.

With the Foley scandal, we have an elected official deliberately doing nasty things with underage boys, and other elected officials deliberately covering it up. There's much more there to pick apart and people you can actually point a finger at.

That, and of course anything involving sex makes both the public and the media 10 times more interested, and so it gets way more attention than it perhaps merits.

Anyway—back to the breaking campaign news here in Minnesota: JUST KIDDING.

Posted by chuck | October 4, 2006 6:29 AM

Outrage just does not do it justice. Outrage is something we should be feeling for much much more than this horrible story. Outrage is something that is missing from the public sphere in general. I am outraged that this country just voted to allow torture, and I am outraged that the media is bored by that topic enough to be ho-hum about it. This tragedy that happened to those poor girls is sick as it gets when one individual loses it and has a gun, but it is sicker when our elected officials disavow the lessons we learned at Nuremberg. Outrage is a feeling we need to feel and express more often, because of the sorry shape this country is in and the deplorable road we have been on in the last five plus years. It might be a sad state of things when attention is being turned to the perversion in our US Republican House leadership, but Foley is just a symptom of the disease we have in Washington. When cowards who think torture is a valid technique, let alone acceptable, no wonder they are the type of people to hide a pedophile in their midst.

Yes, I am outraged, and I think you all should be too. I grieve for those girls, and their families, I am horrified that someone, some individual would do such a thing, but I am equally if not more outraged by the behavior of our county and it leaders.

Posted by Ag | October 4, 2006 8:35 AM

But that's my question. Why are you more outraged?

Let's just take the last 24 hours on this board. There were 40 comments -- most expressing outrage -- that Tim Pugmire would ask Patty Wetterling about an ad that she paid for an stood behind. That may be the most comments on a single post ever on Polinaut , exceeding the GOP CD story.

In a longer period of time, there are 5 comments on the subject of outrage -- or lack thereof -- about school shootings (not including the 1 I deleted because it's a troll and the 3 that were trying to sell some sex drug by mail).

'splain it to me. Is it just that there's no political hay to be made? Does there have to be?

I see where a bunch of folks tried to protest the use of torture at John Kline's office yesterday. Fine. They're outraged. But what do you call what actually did happen to those kids in Pennsylvania?

Let's face it, we blame politicians for gas prices, potholes in the road, lousy SAT scores, and of course, failure to keep pants zipped and protect 16 year old pages. But is it part of it that we actually don't think there's anything anyone can do about "terrorism" in our schools?

Or are we way too caught up in our "team"...our Democrats vs. their Republicans as if they're the Packers and the Vikings or the Twins and the A's?

We pay lip service to bipartisnship, an act of coming together for the common good. Do we mean that? How do we know when we have it?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 4, 2006 8:43 AM

A few quick things on this. First, with the school shootings, there is no controversy. There isn't a person around who would disagree that this was a horrific crime. There is all sorts of controversy surrounding the Foley debacle, and controversy makes for a more interesting story.
Second, it's difficult to do anything about these shootings. Schools already have security cameras, armed guards, lock-down drills, and so on. For outrage to be very worthwhile, it needs to be focused toward something--some problem that can be defined and solved. We haven't been able to define the problem that has brought about this rash of shootings, so it's not possible to come up with a solution past what we've already done.
Finally, I wonder if politicians are too worried about being accused of using tragedy for political gain that they're not willing to talk about these, especially when there isn't a defined cause yet.

Posted by MR | October 4, 2006 8:59 AM

But I think there is a controversy. What there doesn't appear to be is a cover-up.

Your last paragraph I think rings true with me, on the other hand, I also don't hear many politicians asking, "hey, how's that page doing?" either.

Just curious, though. what were people talking about yesterday around your water coolers? (Besides the Twins)

Posted by Bob Collins | October 4, 2006 9:10 AM

The Twins, wishing doom upon the A's, and how much we hate the Yankees. That's about it.

Posted by MR | October 4, 2006 9:21 AM

I just stmbled upon this.

(AP) A congressman who tried to stage a public spinach-eating news conference to demonstrate that the leafy greens are safe following a nationwide E. coli outbreak scrapped his plan after he could not find any in local grocery stores.

Yes, that's definitely an outrage!

Posted by Bob Collins | October 4, 2006 9:35 AM

There's more tying these stories together than the calendar. The news I saw last night said the Amish school shooter had been molested as a child. Foley had also apparently been molested as a child.

How pervasive is child molestation?

Earlier I was going to ask why so many people resort to gun violence. Bob mentions 3 school shootings in the last week, plus that one in Canada a week or two ago. There was a church shooting in Wisconsin last year, I think there have been others in the last year as well. Who are these people that think the best solution is to carry a gun into a school or church or work and open fire? How do they get that way? How do we end up with so many of them in this country?

Posted by bsimon | October 4, 2006 9:54 AM

Good questions, Brian. One guess on the result. IF the Amish school shootings should lead to a discussion of gun control, there will be the sudden appearance of outrage, passion -- and, sadly -- politics on both sides.

But I'm actually beginning to get my head around this a little bit and it gets to the role of "leadership," not necessarily "legislation."

Leaders -- whether in office or running for office -- have a bully pulpit that can be used for more than to say "we'll do something about this." It might just be acknowledging the severity of something, or calming people, or -- for heaven's sake -- uniting them.

I don't sense any interest in the current crop of politicians in having that role. I sense only an interest in winning an election. Which is important, but what about those of us who want to be inspired by leadership?

I wonder if there's more to being a leader than politicians realize? Or not?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 4, 2006 10:09 AM

First, a personal note. I never wanted to side with one of the "two parties" I have no fondness for the two party system. For those who read what I write (and I don't expect anyone would) know this. I have in recent years become active in the DFL (they are now my chosen "team"), but it is not because I am not critical of Democrats, nor the two party system, but rather because of the far right wing extremism that has taken control over our state and federal government. "Bipartisanship" has been dead ever since there has been one party rule, and ever since Bush abused the trust and good will the world shared with us after 9/11. They (the GOP) use war language all the time to describe the political divide, they want to eliminate (and you can take that word metaphorically or otherwise how you see fit) those who disagree with them. That is why I have chosen to act within one of the two parties, and wishing for some sort of step back in time to a civil era just is not possible with those in power currently. If there was a viable third party, things would be better, but there are only two parties who exist outside of the election cycle here in MN, and a party is only a party if it has a base of support. No one is fooled that the IP is currently nothing but an election year scam, they need to do much more work outside of running token candidates to have legitimate impact, and I wish they would. They have not yet earned anyone's vote, "Team MN" is just another election year gimmick.

The use of the term "political hay" is a very cynical approach to all this business with Foley and Torture. Sure there are folks out there that see all this in those terms, but that does not get to the real endemic problem of corruption and ideological divides. People feel very real outrage over our current leaders, and this business of politics is the most serious of businesses.

I am full of outrage FULL of it. The tragedy in Penn adds to it, but it is again a symptom of the greater problem of violence (specifically gun violence and violence on children) in our society. The REAL outrage should be in directed at those who think that this current set of republicans, who cover up violence on children, and condone torture, are from the same mold as previous generations and thus treat them with some legitimacy. The extreme has taken control of their party and they are desecrating our way of life and our constitution. There is no way to look at the this with any sort of balance, things have been WAY out of balance for a long time now, and those in control have abused their power at every step with no one really calling them out. We are at the edge a very deep chasm, and unless these forces are stopped feeling outrage won't do us much good when we can be rounded up on the streets for expressing it. You may find that statement paranoid, but that is the direction we are headed in, denying that potential is naive.

It is just as real that this country just voted to condone torture (and have tortured people, or why do you think that clause was in that bill the pre-pardoned those who participated in this stuff just in case the law did not get through the courts?) as it is real that there are sick people who lose it and go shoot up a school. All this "actually did happen." Is happening, and will continue to happen unless we turnout those cowards who think the only way to beat an enemy is to become just like them.

Those Republicans who wish to regain control of their party, and return it to a respectable player, need to realize that the only thing that will allow some sort of reconstruction, is for their party lose the power which has corrupted them so heavily. The moderates, those like my father who were driven out of that party, need to wake up are realize that the current players of their "team" need to have their contracts torn up.

We all should continue to feel Outrage, but also a great deal of Shame for allowing our country to become what it currently is.

Posted by Ag | October 4, 2006 10:58 AM

I am glad to find someone talking about the school shootings. As a mother of a girl named Naomi in 1st grade (one Amish girls who died was a 7 yr old named Naomi) - I could not breathe last week. The effect of the trauma was worsened by the lack of response by any public official, public persona or group. Where is Oprah when you need her to be outspoken? Why hasn't Michael Moore updated his website with an outraged statement?

By the way, gender-specific murder when girls/women are targets is known as femicide. Has this sick twist made people more hesitant to talk about it?

In response to the lack of response out there, I have talked to every person in my office, every friend who will listen, my daughter's school officials, etc - to try and distill information as to what we can do. The best cause I've found to channel my energy into is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence teamed with the Million Mom March chapters. They have reasonable expectations on how this nation can progress (by baby steps) to work towards sensible laws on preventing gun violence (child safety locks, holding adults accountable for accidents that occur when a child has access to fireams, steps that do not engage in the deadlock debate of gun control).

Of course, the answer to the recent tragedies lies in a complex equation of lessening violence in films & videos & tv shows, providing *accessible* mental health services, limiting excessive exposure to images of pre-pubescent girls as sex symbols, making it more difficult to buy guns (Kmart anyone?), disempowering the NRA, and pressuring politicians to make a stand on these issues.

I agree with Ag that it is *shame* keeping people from speaking out. If these acts were committed by foreigners, or muslims, can you imagine the media response? It is because these people are 'one of us' - members of our own dysfunctional family - that we don't want to speak out. We are all complicit in allowing our nation to evolve to this point in time when people feel tragedies like this are an acceptable toll.

I agree that legalizing torture, a contentious war in Iraq, etc, make the citizens feel so hopeless that they cannot act on any one issue.

I will not be silent, though. I am writing letters and handing out copies to everyone I know to send their representatives. I've written Oprah. I've written the Bill Clinton foundation. I've contacted my local chapter of the Million Mom March and the Brady Campaign. I will organize people locally to show that US communities demand to live without constant fear of gun violence.

Until we make a change, we are all (including our children) walking targets for gun violence.

Posted by Just a Mom | October 10, 2006 2:49 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories