Earlier this month, at a public meeting in Tucson Arizona, a moderate Democratic congresswoman and 12 bystanders were shot by a disturbed young man with quasi-political motives. Were Australia not experiencing a calamity of more pressing import, the shooting might give pause for discussion of the state of political rhetoric. Ironically, it seems our own leaders may have dodged that bullet.
The first pictures most Australians saw of the tragedy were of Tucson's sheriff, clearly emotional, answering clinical questions about rounds fired and security footage, and then, quite unexpectedly, venturing his own analysis.
'When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry ... that may be free speech, but it's not without its consequences.'
(Continues below)
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's remarks did not refer specifically to the 'Tea Party' movement (in fact, his criticism of certain sections of the media was much more pointed) but the remainder of the news cycle was devoted to ascribing blame to this extreme and vocal minority within the Republican Party.
This scrutiny was not without reason; prominent Tea Partiers have typically described the movement as revolutionary in character, and make frequent reference to 'taking back America'.
For example, proto-Tea Partier and former presidential candidate Ron Paul addressed a GOP conference last year with the words 'Government is the enemy of liberty', while Minnesota's Governor Pawlenty offered this: 'Patriots in this room and patriots across this country are rising up. And we have a message for liberals: We're planting the flag on common ground, and if you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back!'
Unsurprisingly, the possibility that such rhetoric may have contributed to the shootings found currency with many.
Australian commentators were quick to counter the sheriff's assessment with the insight that the shootings were 'the actions of a madman', and therefore not worthy of further analysis.
I sympathise with these commentators, because frankly, as a writer, it is a lot easier to sound insightful when playing devil's advocate. No editor will publish an opinion piece with a central thesis of 'I agree entirely with what everyone else is saying. There is very little complexity to this issue.'
I disagree with