Washington Post

By Karen Hughes

 

Friday, January 14, 2011; 8:00 PM

   We can’t blame our rhetoric for the Tucson shootings. But we can try to fix it.

When I traveled the world representing the United States during the George W. Bush administration, I was often confronted by people who wanted to blame the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on American foreign policy.

U.S. support for Israel, along with the suffering of the Palestinian people, they told me, had spawned the resentment and anger that resulted in the attacks on our country.

No, I always answered, you cannot blame the murder of innocent people on any grievance, no matter how legitimate. The only organization and people responsible for Sept. 11 are al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers who carried out its murderous mission.

I’ve been reminded of that argument as I’ve listened to attempts to blame the alleged murderous acts of a twisted young man in Tucson on the tenor of America’s political debate. No, you cannot blame this violence on the shrill voices of politicians and pundits – from the right or the left.

And yet, as President Obama deftly reminded us in his speech on Wednesday night, times of tragedy can become times of national examination. And America needs some soul-searching.

Unlike the spirit of unity that emerged in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the reaction to the tragedy in Tucson seems to have only deepened the chasm in our sharply divided country. We haven’t come together to support the victims and condemn this assault on a bedrock of our political system: the right of citizens to assemble and question their public officials. Instead, our national conversation has devolved into accusations about whom, other than the murderer himself, might be responsible.

I am deeply concerned about the anger and intolerance in our politics and the lack of respect for different points of view. This is taking place not only between the left and the right, and Republicans and Democrats, but among members of my own party.

I saw this divisiveness recently in my state of Texas when Rep. Joe Straus ran for reelection as state House speaker. Straus, whom I work with as an adviser, is a lifelong Republican who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Yet this election season, he suffered vicious attacks from a handful of political activists who questioned his conservative credentials. In a particularly offensive reference to his Jewish faith, some critics suggested that he did not have “Christian values.” The overwhelming majority of his fellow Republicans in the House supported him, but were harassed and threatened with political retribution. Since when did revenge become a Christian value?

Straus did not respond to his misguided critics with similar vitriol but called for greater civility in politics. “Division, threats of retribution, attacks on people’s religious beliefs and distortions of people’s records have no place in this House,” he said, to a standing ovation from his colleagues, after being reelected 132 to 15.

I am a vocal Republican who feels strongly about my conservative principles. But that doesn’t mean I can’t listen to another point of view or give credit when it is due, even to a political leader with whom I largely disagree.

Obama’s speech in Tucson was a difficult one, given the rancor in the country. His words transcended the ugliness of the moment and sought to heal. And while words cannot be blamed for violent acts, words are powerful things. Scripture counsels that we will be held accountable for every careless one. Our words can lift up or tear down, bring us together or rip us apart. Our political debates can and should be spirited. But our words should seek to convince, not to bludgeon.

Obama did what American presidents should do in times of national trauma: He called us to our better selves. Now it’s up to the rest of us.

Karen Hughes, a global vice chair at Burson-Marsteller, served as counselor to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002 and as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2005 to 2007.

 

Elena and I have tried to express this as many ways as we know how.   I have pretty much given up.  I don’t really see much point in trying to converse when one group is always innocent and the other group is always wrong. 

 

 

 

 

37 Thoughts to “Karen Hughes on Rhetoric”

  1. rod2155

    I’m very interested to see some thoughts on this….

  2. Elena

    agree Rod, I am curious also. When will the attacks against Karen Hughs begin?

  3. It certainly didn’t stop the cannabalism towards other Republicans so I expect soon. She is far too establishment to have that Palin Pall of protection.

    Elena, crickets????

  4. Steve Thomas

    “But our words should seek to convince, not to bludgeon.”

    Took me a while to figure this out, but I am in complete agreement with the sentiments. Part of what motivated me in reaching the same conclusion, was what I have witnessed within my own party. I have seen close, personal friends attacked for “not being conservative enough” or called “RINO’s”, when I know for a fact that I hold most of the same views as the subjects of the attacks. Then there are the personal attacks on top of that, which are uncalled for.

    I have to admit that I too once engaged in some of these very same tactics, and over time came to realize that “the ends don’t justify the means”, when those “means” are destructive in nature. I am glad I finally woke up.

    Yes, we can disagree. We can have a spirited debate, defend our positions and attack flaws in the arguments of those with whom we disagree, without attacking the individual. Reagan and Tip Oneil provide a historical example of two leaders respectfully debating the issues, communicating their positions, and getting some things accomplished, without bashing eachother over the head.

  5. Well put, Steve.

    I hate that word RINO. I don’t think the Democrats have an equivolent word. Blue Dog certainly doesn’t carry the tinge of RINO.

    Those who do that will find that they are left standing alone, and that reasonable people who simply disagree will be the ones who are actually making the decisions. You will be a decision-maker.

  6. Elena

    Great example Steve.

    Clearly very different views of government’s role, but somehow, they managed to still treat each other like human beings.

  7. They were excellent role models, Steve. I forgot to comment. I would say that Kennedy and Hatch were good examples. They could fight like old grizzly bears yet in the end, one saw how very fond they were of each other. Who are some others?

  8. Can you blame acts of violence on watching to much television or playing violent video games? The jury is still out, IMO.

  9. Kelly3406

    I see this discussion as a logical non sequitur. One can discuss the Tuscon shootings and one can discuss the need for civility in the politics, but the two do not logically go together. One really has nothing to do with the other.

    I quoted a saying yesterday about not repeating historical errors. The real issue here is why there is no way for authorities to take action when disturbed individuals pose a danger to themselves and others. There seems to be no mechanism for involuntarily committing disturbed individuals before they have killed someone. After each incident ( Klebold and Harris, Cho, Hasan?, Loughlin), society collectively wrings its hands, sings kumbaya, and does absolutely nothing to address the real issue, which is that in each of these cases, there was someone who knew that those people were disturbed, isolated, and dangerous but did not or could not take action to prevent the violence.

    There may be a drive to DO SOMETHING (muffle free speech, ban high capacity magazines, etc), but whatever actions are taken will do nothing to prevent or reduce these incidents until the substantive issue is addressed.

  10. Censored bybvbl

    Kelly, I’d guess that to effectively deal with the issue of involuntary commitment would require a lot of money. One would have to evaluate each suspected case and probably provide legal assistance. You’d have to separate the cases where people were seriously mentally ill and a threat from those where a parent didn’t like a child’s rebellious behavior for example. (I know an individual who was committed to one of Virginia’s mental instsitutions in the late 50s because he had epilepsy. How do you protect against abuses such as that?) You’d probably need more residential facilities and staff. Who’s going to pay for all this? It appears that most states have figured that it’s just cheaper to hope an incident doesn’t happen again.

  11. Kelly, I have been asking that question for the past week and have barely been able to get a peep from anyone. I wish you had been more definitive when you first brought it up. I suspect the silence is due to there being no remotely comfortable answers.

    I have been very deep into the ‘bowels’ of both Western State and St. Elizabeths academically (I should make that clear. 😉 ) I was horrified. There really is nothing like close contact with people seriously mentally disturbed to make you question the depths of man’s descent into the abyss or even the nature of evil.

    To say that my career path changed trajectory would be an understatement. I never want to witness humans in that condition again. Did institutionalization make them worse? I don’t know and I don’t care. They did not belong free in society any more than a rapist or serial killer does.

    Somewhere in those decades since I visited those facilities, improvements have been made in sorting. Will we ever know who is capable of harming others? Probably not completely but there are some people that are sure giving us a lot of hints. Hippa be damned. Short of locking Aunt Lois in the attic, we really need to bring back institutions to house those who are not safe in society.

  12. Well, publicity seems to be the motivating factor in some cases. The same jurisdiction that had trouble dealing with Loughner and his threats just involuntarily committed the man that threatened the TP speaker in Arizona.

    That was quick.

  13. marinm

    You would think that with as many times as Ms. Spears has been 5150’d in CA that people would’ve thought — hey do we have something like that in our states?

    Then again with how just looking at someone funny might get you sued I can see how some people would rather ignore an issue and brush it off as – it’s the government’s job they’ll do it.

    The answer here is as clear as mud. We need to balance invidiual rights (I think hippy’s are off but that doesn’t mean they’re mental) with the safety of society. So, each state needs to take up the issue and make that balance test and adjust it as they see issues or abuses.

  14. Emma

    Pardon the lengthy post, but I think this article summarizes best the cost of deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. How said that violence has to occur before society can be protected from people who have a civil right not to take their anti-psychotic medication.

    In June, Michael Laudor, a Yale Law School graduate who suffers from schizophrenia, allegedly slashed his fiancée, Caroline Costello, to death. Last month, Russell Weston, a drifter with schizophrenia, allegedly murdered two policemen, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, in an assault on the U.S. Capitol.
    These are only the most publicized of an increasing number of violent acts by people with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness who were not taking the medication they need to control their delusions and hallucinations. The pattern has been emerging for the past decade. Based on information gathered in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, we estimate that approximately 1,000 homicides a year are committed nationwide by seriously mentally ill individuals who are not taking their medication.
    A Question of When
    The total number of individuals with active symptoms of schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness is some 3.5 million. The National Advisory Mental Health Council has estimated that 40% of them – roughly 1.4 million people – are not receiving any treatment in any given year. It is therefore not a question of whether someone will follow Michael Laudor and Russell Weston into the headlines. It is merely a question of when.
    A 1990 study of families with a seriously mentally ill member reported that 11% of the ill individuals had physically assaulted another person in the previous year. In 1992 sociologist Henry Steadman studied individuals discharged from psychiatric hospitals. He found that “27 percent of released male and female patients report at least one violent act within a mean of four months after discharge.” Another 1992 study, by Bruce Link of the Columbia University School of Public Health, reported that seriously mentally ill individuals living in the community were three times as likely to use weapons or to “hurt someone badly” as the general population. A 1998 MacArthur Foundation study found that seriously mentally ill individuals committed twice as many acts of violence in the period immediately prior to their hospitalization, when they were not taking medication, compared with the posthospitalization period when most of them were taking medication.
    The emerging pattern of violence is clear. And it is part of a larger pattern: increasing numbers of severely mentally ill individuals among the homeless population, incarcerated in jails and prisons for offenses committed while psychotic, and loitering in parks, public libraries and transportation stations. The pattern is the product of deinstitutionalization gone awry, the discharge of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill individuals from the nation’s public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they get the medication they need to remain well.
    Recent studies have shown that about half of those who have schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness have markedly impaired insight into their illness. That is, they do not know that they are sick, because their brain disease has affected the frontal lobe circuits that are necessary for complete self-awareness. If they are not sick, they reason, why do they need a cure? Mr. Weston repeatedly told his family that he was not sick and rejected their pleas that he take his medication.
    Individuals like Mr. Weston will take medication only if it is mandated. And this can be done in 37 states under outpatient commitment statutes, or in a few other states under conservatorships or conditional hospital release arrangements. Both Montana and Illinois, the states that should have been treating Mr. Weston, have outpatient commitment laws under which he could have been required to take medication as a condition for living in the community.
    However, these laws are difficult to invoke. Lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Washington-based Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law have changed most states’ criteria for outpatient commitment. Individuals must be classified as an imminent danger to themselves or others before they can be involuntarily treated, either in the hospital or in the community; this criterion is strictly applied. Most psychotic individuals, who are merely making threats against others or living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans, are not deemed legally sick enough to qualify for outpatient commitment.
    At the same time as civil liberties lawyers have been making it virtually impossible to treat severely mentally ill individuals involuntarily until they commit some horrific act, state mental health officials have been increasingly abdicating their responsibility for these individuals. More than 90 % of state psychiatric hospital beds that existed in 1960 have been eliminated. Many states have turned over the responsibility for treating severely mentally ill individuals to health-maintenance organizations. Some of them, mostly nonprofits, are doing a creditable job. But for-profit HMOs, with few exceptions, have been disastrous for the severely mentally ill, who are expensive to treat. The newest antipsychotic medications, which are essential for some mentally ill patients, can cost $400 a month.
    If we hope to stem this tide of unnecessary violence and preventable tragedies, we will have to address squarely the issue of involuntary treatment. Outpatient commitments, conservatorships, and conditional hospital releases should be used much more widely to ensure that discharged patients comply with the requirement that they take their medication. Since most severely mentally ill individuals also receive federal subsidies such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or Veterans’ Administration benefits, such subsidies could be linked to treatment compliance. Mr. Weston, for example, had been receiving monthly SSI payments since 1984, but such payments were never linked to his treatment.
    We prevent individuals with Alzheimer’s disease from living on the streets, because we understand that they have a brain disorder. We mandate involuntary treatment for some tuberculosis sufferers who refuse to take medication, because we understand that they are potentially dangerous to other people. We should do the same for individuals with schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness.
    State Responsibility
    Another necessary step: Washington should hold the nation’s governors directly responsible for their states’ mental illness treatment programs. The care of severely mentally ill and disabled individuals has been a state responsibility for 150 years. Most states have no internal monitoring to assess the quality of public psychiatric services. As a condition for receiving federal mental health block grants, states could be required to institute such programs, using audits of mental health centers’ clinical activities and unannounced inspections of hospitals and group homes. The state data could then be sent to the Institute of Medicine under the National Academy of Sciences, which would submit an annual report to Congress.
    These horrors are preventable. Michael Laudor should be teaching at Yale Law School and Russell Weston should be mining Montana’s hills. Their victims should still be alive. The tragedy is that the mentally ill are a threat to society because society has failed them.

    http://omnihealthservices.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/wall-street-journal-why-deinstitutionalization-turned-deadly/

  15. @Cargo, the disabled vet who said ‘you’re dead’ (which he should NOT have done.) to the TPP was ordered for an evaluation. that does not commit him, necessarily.

    That was probably a good idea since the guy had just been shot less than a week ago. He very well could be unstable.

  16. Emma, Thank you for posting that important piece of information. I won’t argue with one word in there. 50 years ago schizophrenia was treated differently. Its origins were much more tied to how one was raised than to chemical imbalances and brain disorder. Sick, disturbed people often don’t take medication. Some who do still shouldn’t be out amongst the general population.

    How many more Cho’s and Jareds is it going to take before Americans stand up and demand that laws change? It is less expensive to treat them than to ignore the problem. Pay me now or pay me later.

    Already VA is cutting back mental health services. The VA Tech massacre happened in April 2007. How quickly we all forget.

  17. Emma, excellent article.

    I do have a question though–how does one ensure a severely mentally ill person who receives outpatient services takes his/her medicine? Does staff administer meds at the facility? What if a patient doesn’t show up for services?

  18. Posting,

    You have just asked the $64,000 question! And there is no answer. When I learned of the mass de-population of the institutions in the early ’80s and late ’70’s, I asked that very same question.

  19. Raymond Beverage

    Moon, you asked the question up in #11 – “Will we ever know who is capable of harming others?” And your right, probably not.

    There was a briefing about Physical Security of Health Facilities, where a Captain of one of a Northern Virginia Police SWAT was presenting. He made a statement that it is only a matter of time before a Veteran “snaps” (his exact word), and becomes a threat. Needless to say, the group was shocked. Me? I not be shocked.

    I know what I was trained to do, and what many of my fellow Combat Arms of any branch were trained to do. It is my upbringing and too many decades of Duty, Honor and Loyalty to my Oath that maintains the balance. Of course, I had one Army shrink say one that brainwashing is a good thing when it comes to the military.

    So your question is right on the money! What drives one individual to maintain a balance may not be so for others.

  20. After you have the people who go on killing sprees, then you have the nut jobs who are lone wolves. The former owner of my doxie’s sister was killed. She was helping some woman who was troubled. One day she went to help her and the troubled one blew her away. This is not one of my more liberal topics. I am very much about putting people where they cannot harm others.

    Old Yeller made quite an impression on me as a child. So did Cujo.

  21. @Cargosquid
    Glad it wasn’t just me asking.

    I suppose the state could enforce med taking at the day facility and mandate the patient attend the program daily. If the patient didn’t show up, s/he could be institutionalized involuntarily. But having this kind of plan would be costly, maybe even more costly than committing someone to an in-patient facility.

    A family member, friend or guardian could sign up to be the responsible party for the purpose of administering medication, but would that work? Would someone want to take be held liable for an adult’s health and behavior? Some probably would, but many would not.

    What I don’t like about the article above is the way the author says, “A 1990 study of families with a seriously mentally ill member reported that 11% of the ill individuals had physically assaulted another person in the previous year.” This gives the impression that most people who are mentally ill are dangerous. Furthermore, the author does not describe what “seriously mentally ill” is and doesn’t separate out those who are seriously mentally ill but not a threat to others. How much does 11% actually represent?

    I am not saying we should not be more vigilant because clearly, we must be. I am certainly not saying the way we handle mental illness in this country is working. What I am saying, though, is we can’t afford to give off the impression that most people with mental illness are dangerous. If we do, further stigma will deter mentally ill people from seeking treatment. It’s a precarious balancing act to consider, as most here have said.

  22. Incidentally: he Coalition for Virginians with Mental Disabilities will hold a rally from 9am-10am today, January 17, 2011, at the Capitol Square Bell Tower in Richmond, VA. Hundreds of people with disabilities, family members, service providers and concerned citizens from across the Commonwealth are anticipated to be in attendance at the event. Several legislators are expected to deliver remarks to the crowd. The Coalition serves as a united voice for Virginians with developmental disabilities, mental illness and substance use disorders.

    Members of the Coalition are holding the rally to urge members of the Virginia General Assembly to preserve and strengthen essential services that promote recovery, independence and community-integration for people with disabilities. In particular, rally attendees will call for the elimination of cuts to critical community-based services that are contained in the current budget and an increase in state funding in order to meet urgent needs. To see the full Coalition for Virginians with Mental Disabilities Legislative Agenda, visit http://www.thearcofva.org/docs/2011_legislative_priorities.pdf

  23. Elena

    @Steve

    Did you read this article in the post today……great read, made my heart warm and be hopeful that we can get back to that spirited debate one day without the all the name calling.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011703299.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

  24. @Posting as Pinko
    I was supposed to be down there today. Today is Lobby Day and I show up with the VCDL. The 10th Amendment Coalition was supposed to have a rally too.

    Couldn’t make it. Real life interfered.

  25. Juturna

    Emma – great article now all we need is some action. Perhaps locally not selling the ABC stores which provides revenue to mental health groups statewide is not in our best interest. Funding needs to be diverted to craft legislation to change what happens here in VA. Locally, PWC has had two school shootings. That’s frightening. Two is a lot.

    Regardng this particular post – I am seeing more and more thoughtful people Republicans/Democrats Politicians/Media emerge with calm and thoughtful commentary. They do exist, they’ve been overshadowed by the sensational and the angry. These are the people to remember when an issue becomes heated, these are the people whose opinions should be sought and considered regardless of their ‘label’. As we’ve seen this week ‘labels’ are very misleading if any lesson is to be learned it’s that looking and listening beyond the label is worthwhile. It’s the thinking that is what is important. High Schoolers will learn via Debate Team or the more popular Mock Trial that how you form your argument is key. You can’t form an argument unless you listen. And usually that means listening to those with whom you disagree.

  26. 2 school shooters since when?

  27. juturna

    Bull Run and NOVA –

  28. Raymond Beverage

    Just an observation on Mental Health and Substance Abuse –

    In the 2009 GA Session, the bright folks in the Legislature reduced funding to the local Community Services. Then, they turned around and approved 10 new ABC Stores and 20 employees.

    At least they know where the cash cow is. But so much for emphasis on reducing risk factors for a variety of things, including alcohol induced mental illness.

  29. @Cargosquid
    Cargo, what do the acronyms stand for? I probably should know, but I don’t.

  30. I had forgotten about Bull Run and NOVA. I was thinking you meant since 2011. Thank goodness that isn’t what was meant!!

    In both of those cases, the superior training of the police force prevented disaster. That training takes hours and it isn’t cheap. Yet their funds keep getting cut locally and from the state. I am not so sure that is the kind of ‘savings’ we might want to be bragging about.

  31. Virginia Citizens Defense League, a 2nd Amendment right’s organization, or as the paper once called it, a government watch dog group….

    http://www.vcdl.org/

    1. Is that the group that brought the guns into Tony’s?

      I understand the documentary Living for 32 is gaining a great deal of power.

  32. heidi schlossberg

    Emma,
    I agree with much of your article except for a couple of issues some of which was mentioned by pinko. First of all, I also take some exception to the statistics they mention. Also, I disagree with the fact that they combine schizophrenia and manic -depression. Although schizophrenia is easier, medically speaking, to treat than bipolar disorder, when situations arise like the latest shooter, it is usually someone schizophrenic, not bipolar. Secondly, while it is true that lithium is very effective for schizophrenia, for many bipolar people, there are not many success stories in terms of effective and non-lethal treatments. Many of the drugs like lithium , depakote, or newer antipsychotics cause serious and in many cases permenant life threatening diseases that make the medications unsavory and in many cases innefective for people who suffer from bipolar.
    Additionally, as a general rule, bipolar people dont tend to be homicidal. They usually become suicidal unlike schizophrenics who strike outward. For manic-depressives, it is not as simple as simply “taking medication”. Additionally, I also agree that we are skirting close to the edge when we start to think that the majority of homicidal maniacs are seriously mentally ill. That is a fallacy. Are there a lot of sick bastards out there? Yes. Are most of these people schizophrenic? No. However, it is true that a majority of people in jail are mentally ill and that many people on the street are mentally ill and do not get the care they need thanks to the lack of proper mental health care in this country. I am not just talking about lockup facilities. I am talking about comprehensive wrap around services that make it very easy for these people to get help, medically and therapeutically.Additionally, I would like to say that unless you have had personal experience with a 51/50 mental health care hold, and understand the power doctors have, it is not a concept that should be thrown around lightly. I would like to take a poll: How many people who blog here have an immediate relative that is either schizophrenic or bipolar??

  33. hs4265

    I must say also, my father who started in DC as an investigative photojournalist exposed the horrors of St Elizabeths and the horrors of mentally ill people sitting in their own excrement, starving, being abused, raped, beaten by the sane people in charge. I absolutely agree that things have swung too far to the left, but if we want to lock people up, we had better be damn sure we do it humanely and properly this time and not violate American Citizens rights while protecting ours.

  34. I don’t know much about that documentary. I do know that the gun control groups could only muster a few dozen to show up vs the hundreds for the VCDL. I also don’t know anything about bringing guns into Tony’s, but, members do have meetings and gatherings in restaurants. Remember, open carry was mandatory for any places that served alcohol until very recently. Discretion was not allowed.

  35. @heidi schlossberg
    Heidi, the other problem is that there are different levels and types of bi-polar. For example, what the DSM calls “bi-polar II” is not what we picture when we say bi-polar or manic depressive. Bi-polar II patients suffer from mood swings that are mildly manic (i.e. increased energy, happiness, etc.) but mostly suffer from bouts of depression. The depression is directed towards self. It’s misleading to put people with bi-polar disorders into a single category and then say they are dangerous. Same goes for people with schizophrenia–some have it mildly and can distinguish between reality and hallucinations, but some cannot. Some are violent, some are paranoid, but again, to generalize is misleading and dangerous in its own way.

  36. marinm

    I think the Tony’s incident was people more aligned with opencarry.org than with VCDL. Of course they share members but it was reporeted all over opencarry and then VCDL picked up on it; I think.

Comments are closed.