Find Insurance Online

Before the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords in early 2011, it had been quite some time since there had been a major assassination attempt on American soil.  The attempt on President Reagan had been almost thirty years earlier.  During this time, I suspect that many Americans had developed the naive view that American politics (or at least the security protection) had developed sufficiently to make the barbaric acts of political violence obsolete, or at least impractical. We may also have had the view that U.S. House Representatives are not of the stature such as of U.S. Senators and the President, and thus would not be the targets of assassination. So I believe shock was the natural reaction that many Americans had upon hearing the news of Gabrielle Giffords.  Most people may have assumed that the shooter had been ginned up on Tea Party rhetoric and was carrying the political tactic to its logical conclusion. To be sure, the debate over health-care had been heated, but I believe the violence reflects something deeper, and therefore on-going, in any society.  To put the matter bluntly, "there are some real whackos out there."  If you have ever been to a public political speech or event, I would be surprised if you didn't notice a few people who seemed unseasonably animated or perhaps simply odd--their oddity being brought out by the political nature of the event, irrespective of the speaker. I am not referring to simply voicing a different point of view, or even expressing some emotion, which could be reasonably expected given the political context. So I am not pointing simply to people exercising their first amendment right of free speech--a right that cannot insist on conformity of opinion. Rather, what I am getting at is the inordinate expression of emotion, which doesn't seem to fit with what one would make sense in coming from the political context. It is only natural in observing a person evincing odd behavior to suspect something else in play--something idiosyncratic to the person's psychological condition. The interaction of certain emotional problems with politics might be in play for certain people, and it could contribute to our understanding of the phenomenon of assassination. Indeed, the dynamic might be a fruitful area of research for scholars of political psychology.

Lest I not be misunderstood, I'll use another example. If you have ever taken a subway, or perhaps a bus, in a large city, you may well have witnessed a person making strange facial expressions (or making odd comments) that seem to come out of nowhere.  That is, no source for the person's behavior can be identified, so we tend to assume the person is crazy. Although perhaps less extreme, the same dynamic could be in play for some people when they interact in a political context; the source of their odd behavior cannot be accounted for by the immediate context--in fact, the behavior seems out of place, and thus sourced in something sui generis in the person, which has an interaction effect with politics. If I am correct, then psychologists may be able to identify conditions that could manifest as assasins. 

Of course, I could simply be observing that society contains people who are not of the familiar norm. Perhaps going to a political rally or speech proffers a chance to see just what our society looks like, beyond one's circle of friends, co-workers and family.  Coming out of our homes and work environments, away from our friends and family, we find that there exist people in the broader society who are "different" from us. That is to say, we realize that not everyone is like us psychologically. Of course, this doesn't mean they are crazy. "Different" must be distinguished from "emotionally disturbed." Even so, it must be admitted, I think, that there are disturbed people who react in a political situation much as an alcoholic might in being at a party. Most people at a party chat and laugh, dance and eat, but then there is the person who loses control and behaves in a way not accounted for by the context.

In the public square, it is as though a few people decide it is ok to unleash their rantings (i.e., psychological anxiety) publically. It may be the existence of such people that makes entering politics so scary to many people who would otherwise enter out of a deontological sense of public duty. Being in a public role, such as an elected office, opens one up to having to deal with people who treat the public square as an extension of their houses, where they might yell at the news or otherwise carry on in private to relieve themselves of an underlying anxiety. In short, the political realm can bring people out of the woodwork whom the rest of us would not suppose are even in our society.  Presuming a license inherent in politics to manifest their inner psychology publically, they may be giving us an indication of what they are capable of in that domain--namely, violence as an expression of their underlying psychology. Booth, for example, may have shot Lincoln not from any deep-rooted sense of retribution for the war; instead, this rationale could simply be window-dressing...an excuse...for what was really a psychological condition that found a particular expression.  
In the case of the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords, the suspect is by several accounts a troubled man. The New York Times describes the suspect in court as being "wide-eyed." At the defense table, "his eyes darted back and forth and his mouth curled up at one point into a quick smile." He had been kicked out of college after having been disruptive in several classes. Being a public official opens one up to being the target of whatever pathology is going on in such a person.  I think the problem is much deeper...and permanent...than simply blaming the Tea Party. Perhaps one policy implication is that counseling ought to be made available for more Americans regardless of income.  We ought to know by now that we are all affected aversely from other's unresolved issues. Perhaps part of the requirement for practicing as a counselor or psychologist could be a certain number of "pro bono" patients who have been flagged as potentially dangerous.  Just a few days before the violence against the congresswoman, I heard a local report of a black high school student on a bus who yelled at and threatened a caucasion man because the latter had joined in a conversation in which "nigga" was used.  Apparently the use of that word is limited by race upon pain of getting hit or worse.  The bus driver reportedly did nothing in spite of the kid's on-going shouting and threats (and racism). Perhaps it was not poltically correct so the behavior was ignored even as the other passengers must have been disturbed.  My reaction on hearing this story was that the student's high school should be notified, and that he should have to receive therapy, for something more deep-rooted than simply a word was troubling him (the word itself was apparently used in a friendly tone). 

In conclusion, public displays, in short, can be taken as expressions of something psychological in nature that, in the last analysis, really doesn't have anything to do with the politics of the moment. We, as a society, need not accept the presupposition that the political domain is a viable excuse for people to display their dirty laundry in public--that the domain is predisposed for intimacies to be displayed. Furthermore, we need to question the right of untreated mental illness to manifest in society, as though there were a right to be sick, where there is risk to others. In the case of the local bus, the driver should not have allowed the emotionally troubled high school student to go on shouting and threatening; the student did not have the right to continue disturbing the other passengers. The driver should have warned the student and followed up by calling the police if necessary. Simply presuming a right to "go off" on a bus might be politically correct, but I contend that it is misplaced and erroneous. I do not believe the student was mentally ill; rather, it sounds like he was a troubled youth. Either way, if psychologists are not required to treat malcontents in society pro bono as part of the licence to practice, society will continue to experience incidents such as political assasinations and shootings in schools. We have been turning a blind eye to the psychologically dangerous in society, preferring to presume that shoots are isolated cases--viewing political assasinations as reactions to particular policies or platforms and school shootings as particular students being angry at particular school officials.  If we are not careful, our narrow perspective could be reckoned as pathological!

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11giffords.html?_r=1&hp