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.