Remarks on the Connecticut Tragedy

I cannot think of anything more painful than suffering the loss of a young child. To survive one’s child is perverse in itself but to see young lives cut short is so unbearable, I refuse to even contemplate it, except momentarily. Yet hysterical responses to public tragedies are not wise and we are well advised to reflect carefully on the social conditions which have led to the state of affairs where such tragedies are possible.

At first brush, it may seem that the spike in high-profile mass shootings this year is unconnected with other world events. However, it is clear that something has changed over the decades since the Whitman sniper massacre of 1966 first splattered the issue of multiple-victim public shootings onto the consciousness of Americans. While it is difficult to estimate firearms per capita in the US over time, there are fewer armed households than there were in 1966. The kinds of guns used in MVPS today are not anymore deadly than those that have been used in the MVPS events since 1966. But it is undeniable that events of this nature are becoming more frequent and that the total number of victims continues to escalate at a disturbing rate.

The knee-jerk reaction of the politicos is to divide on partisan lines – one side calling for stricter gun-controls and the other side averring guns are not the problem. The instinctive response of journalists, city officials, police administrators and unions is to call for more restrictions on gun ownership and possession. But it is not at all clear that restrictions on gun ownership reduce the risks of MVPS events. The gut reaction of those who are uncomfortable with popular gun possession to call for greater restrictions on gun ownership is largely emotional and the arguments for gun restrictions based on preventing MVPS events are invariably specious.

Another thing to keep in mind during such tragic events is that – in the grand scheme of things – we live in the least violent epoch of human history, a surprising thesis that Steven Pinker puts forward in his thought-provoking book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Pinker explains the thesis of his book in this talk delivered at TED in 2007.

There was a striking decline in the murder rate during the 1990’s which economist Steve Levitt has controversially attributed to the Roe v. Wade decision in his book Freakonomics. But other than this decline, we have seen a general militarization of police forces in response to better armed and more adept criminals.

There is one correlata with the increasing violence of US culture that often goes ignored by the media, probably because soul-searching is not very popular: the steadily increasing militance of US foreign policy since the end of WWII. The US military budget today is larger than the next top thirteen national military budgets combined. This is rather surprising given that there has not been any news that there is an imminent invasion of US territory by the thirteen next largest militaries in the world. The US maintains 700 military installations[1] in over 170 of the 200 nations on this planet. The US is involved in two overt wars that have extended for over a decade – Afghanistan since December 2001 and Iraq since March 2003. In addition, the US is covertly involved in countless conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere around the globe. The US covert capacity (headquarted out of JSOC of recent infamy) has been dramatically expanded since 2001. In addition, the ambitions of the US to expand its reach are being realized through automated methods.

The culture of military-worship has its social costs. The tragedies wrought by some of the psychologically disturbed war veterans in the years since 2001 are a portrait-in-miniature of the wider social consequences of unending war. The list of atrocities – however inadvertent they may be – at the hands of US forces since 2001 is staggering.

Violence abroad comes home to roost. It evinces itself in the increasingly paranoid obsession of the public with exaggerated security threats – however miniscule or distant they may be. A quick perusal of the cable channels at any given hour reads like it were a broadcast from Pentagon headquarters: Homeland, Covert Affairs, NCIS, Military channel, History channel (military technologies), military-themed movies, and so on. Naturally, war nerds – who are otherwise pro-peace – like to watch these kinds of TV shows and movies but I strongly doubt that the interests of the wider public in this programming is driven by disinterested fascination with military history and modern military strategy. I see in it a worship of all things military, an undue reverence and awe accorded to the Pentagon, a vicarious pleasure in the fantasy of military invincibility and even a secret and hypocritical lust for imperial dominance over others.

Rather than just reaching for emotionally-driven, knee-jerk reactions characterized as “meaningful action” by the political establishment in Washington, DC, I would like to see some soul-searching on the cultural pre-conditions that have led us to where we are. The same culture of war-worship inevitably has as its byproduct the fetishization of all the means of violence, including firearms. So, we are well advised not only to question the firearms fetish of some in the “right-wing” but also to ask ourselves how we reached the current situation of “bipartisan” support for the US government’s worldwide militarism which is costing American taxpayers as much as $2T all told (the costs of US military activities are larger than just the DoD budget). While no one – not the US President, not “Americans”, not anybody – has the power to make certain that tragedies like the one in Connecticut cannot occur, we must still take a serious-minded approach to learning from these events rather than allowing them to be distorted into serving short-run, partisan ends.

Clayton –

1 – It is sometimes misreported that the US maintains 700 military bases in 170 countries and this is not accurate, many of these installations are not bases in the military sense of housing soldiers or war materials.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Remarks on the Connecticut Tragedy

  1. Andris Birkmanis 12/15/2012 at 08:08 Reply

    The second half of the article was rather unexpected – I thought you would blame disarming of lawful citizens as the cause.

  2. claytonkb 12/15/2012 at 08:20 Reply

    @Andris: But aren’t the two related? After all, the purpose of disarming the citizenry is to build an ever more formidable Leviathan, with awesome weapons and overwhelming power that one cannot even dream of resisting – a demigod that can only be worshipped in awe and terror.

  3. Andris Birkmanis 12/15/2012 at 08:51 Reply

    I think both disarming of citizens and worship of the military are subordinate to worship of the State, thus I was surprised that you single out one of them. But I fully agree otherwise.

  4. claytonkb 12/15/2012 at 08:54 Reply

    The reason for singling out the worship of the military is to provide a rebuff to those who will decry gun ownership, but then hail the militarization of local police and the expansion of the US global military empire. You can’t have it both ways. And, yes, the disarming of the citizenry is clearly the political meaning of “meaningful action.” Plenty has been written on this topic from the libertarian perspective, so I thought it best to try to contribute an original thought.

  5. Neodoxy 12/15/2012 at 19:00 Reply

    I liked this article, although I believe it to be below the quality of your usual content, Clayton.
    The United States will not be made safe until a cultural shift occurs which can prevent sick things like this event. No matter how much the liberals hate in and no matter how much they love to point at European crime levels as evidence of effective gun control, the fact is that the United States is not like Europe. They’re not rather uncommon; they’re already here en masse. You will never somehow poof all the guns out of everyone’s hands. Guns won’t suddenly go away just because you outlawed them. Those who want guns will be able to get guns an perform sicko stuff like this.
    Just as you indicate the only way to prevent things like this is to reform the culture to a state where things like this don’t happen. Part of this means not giving extensive media coverage to these sickos allowing the nation to move on from a tragedy, rather than shining this spotlight on a murderer. Guns are nothing new; school shooting are. This means we might have too look a little further for the cause instead of using this to confirm our existing biases.

  6. willytruth 12/16/2012 at 00:13 Reply

    Of course it’s true that our military culture (nationalism, jingoism, etc.) inevitably gets buried down in our subconsciouses, but I don’t think that it’s a new phenomenon for us to have a primal lust for violence or that our deplorable foreign policy has somehow brought it to the surface.

    I do, however, think that the media-political one-two punch is a huge contributor to these massacres. The creation and perpetuation of fear with the state offering false promises of security, while in turn making us less safe and more dependent, is all very troubling. With the interconnectivity of everyone, everywhere nowadays, it seems that people have realized that they can simply become an instant celebrity by horrifying the world.

    • claytonkb 12/16/2012 at 13:20 Reply

      Note that I’m not saying our foreign policy caused or even directly contributed to this tragedy. Rather I’m pointing out a correlation and calling for reflection instead of reaction. The present US government is a reckless and unprecedented social experiment. Yet at each juncture in history,at each inflection point which could serve as an opportunity to pause and ask ourselves just how sure we are in our conceits, we instead double down and raise the stakes even higher. Aggressive foreign policy, medieval legal concepts, wanton fiscal irresponsibility and even domestic issues such as gun control are all part of this wider pattern in my opinion.

  7. signalfire 12/17/2012 at 06:18 Reply

    Rather than send the alcoholically-demented GWB and his controller Cheney to the Haig, the first thing Pres. Obama did was order some bomb attack or another. He’s proud of ‘killing Bin Laden’ and is personally responsible for exactly how many deaths both by order and default? And yet he cries over this? What kind of psychopaths are we pretending are our leaders, and who is directing them? When did evil become business as usual?

    • claytonkb 12/17/2012 at 12:20 Reply

      @signalfire: Well, yes, many, many more than 20 children have died at the hands of Bush and Obama. There’s a video clip on YouTube of Madeleine Albright that they (Clinton admin.) think the deaths of as many as 500,000 children is “worth it”. How can a person even… I mean, there really are no words.

      http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/

  8. claytonkb 12/20/2012 at 20:10 Reply

    Lew Rockwell summed it up perfectly: “When Bill Clinton was president, he hosted a White House conference on improving public high schools. In a press conference, he said “our children” (they’re always the State’s and not the parents’) must learn to settle their disputes without fighting. Violence, he said, is not the way. During the press conference, he was dropping planeloads of bombs on the Serbians.

    In his press conference the other day, Obama said that “we” (the State) must oppose “a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.” Damn right. Call the Pentagon and the CIA and order them to stop murdering Muslims. How many millions of innocents has the US killed in its career of aggressive wars? We were even told by Madeline Albright that starving and sickening to death 500,000 Iraqi school children was “worth it.” Obama did not mean his sort of violence, of course, nor the hundreds of guns that surround him and the royal family 24/7. Nor did he mean his funders in the movie and TV business. He meant the peaceful, self-reliant people who do not trust him or any part of government, from local police to federal death squads.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: