A week ago, I linked to a blogpost by Michael Medved in which he claimed that historically, political assassinations have not been motivated by those with political differences (Lincoln and MLK being arguable exceptions), let alone “harsh political rhetoric”:
past periods of nasty debate produced no assassinations—the McCarthy era resounded with charges of treason but no major shootings of public figures. Killings often occur in placid political climates of consensus – as with the assassinations of popular, young centrist presidents, Garfield and Kennedy, following elections in 1880 and 1960 when major candidates largely agreed on issues. Fierce rhetoric doesn’t cause shootings, any more than consensus politics guarantees safety for our public figures.
There’s actually a study completed in 1999 by the Secret Service that backs up Medved’s claim. The Exceptional Case Study Project was undertaken by psychologist Robert Fein and Secret Service agent Bryan Vossekuil. Their study covers all 83 assassins/would-be assassins who killed or attempted to kill a public figure in the United States from 1949 to 1996.
Fein interviewed 20 surviving attackers with the following sales pitch:
“We’d say, ‘We’re here because we’re in the business of trying to protect people and prevent these kinds of attacks. You are one of the few experts because you’ve engaged in this behavior. We would like to talk to you to understand your perspectives, your life.’ ”
Most said they’d be very glad to talk, Fein recalls.
The researchers asked prisoners how they chose targets, how they prepared. They inquired about their motives, every intimate detail of their process. After they asked these questions, they combined the answers with other sources and analyzed the information. In 1999, they published their results in The Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Based upon their findings, political motive rarely played a role in attacks against public figures:
Nonpolitical Killers
The insights of this study are interesting to review in light of the Arizona shooting, though obviously we still don’t know that much about Jared Loughner, the suspect in the attack, or his motives. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that according to Fein and Vossekuil, assassinations of political figures were almost never for political reasons.
“It was very, very rare for the primary motive to be political, though there were a number of attackers who appeared to clothe their motives with some political rhetoric,” Fein says.
What emerges from the study is that rather than being politically motivated, many of the assassins and would-be assassins simply felt invisible. In the year before their attacks, most struggled with acute reversals and disappointment in their lives, which, the paper argues, was the true motive. They didn’t want to see themselves as nonentities.
“They experienced failure after failure after failure, and decided that rather than being a ‘nobody,’ they wanted to be a ‘somebody,’ ” Fein says.
They chose political targets, then, because political targets were a sure way to transform this situation: They would be known.
Incidentally, the claim that President Obama receives a 300% jump in death threats compared to President Bush (actually, Ronald Kessler’s claim is more like 400% in his book, In the President’s Secret Service, pg 225) is disputed by the Director of the Secret Service:
“The threats right now … is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in their administrations,” Sullivan said.
It’s quite possible Kessler’s figure was accurate at the time (mentioned in wake of President Obama’s election) but has since tapered off to “normal” levels (note that most of these threats that are figured into the tally are not of a credible nature).
Shortly after the shootings, Dr. Torrey in the WSJ wrote:
Some have speculated on the possible relationship of our acrimonious political climate to the incident. It is, however, unlikely that there is any such relationship, since similar tragedies occur in politically harmonious times as well.
The motivation for such killings is usually based on psychotic thinking, not political thinking. Dennis Sweeney killed Allard Lowenstein [former congressman] because he believed that Lowenstein had implanted a transmitter in his teeth that was sending messages to him. Russell Weston stormed the Capitol because he believed the government had hidden a machine there that could reverse time.
The Exceptional Case Study Project itself, while admitting to some cases of mental illness playing a role, also points out that the way they acted out their issues weren’t entirely irrational.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
So basically what again is being said, yes in a “different language” or scientific disipline is . . . mental illness is a reason to ostracize an individual from society? In the eons past ostricization was a “death sentence”. The individual alone just simply could not survive. Today we live in different world. One that dictates the “right to medical care”. Is this not a form of keeping the weak and insane alive? Ah, so the irony of Obamacare is that the insane will continue to exist and thus be provided the opportunity to “restore themselves and their sense of importance”. Strange is it not, that the perspectives of the politician can in some ways be viewed as a special kind of insanity? So we have the spectrum of divide, the irony of all, that the insanity of politic is preyed upon by the insanity of the neglected. We see the extremes of our society in it’s ever growing awareness of far right, far left and the insanity that both represent. Clearly the moderate, be they left or right, is where the peak of the bell curve achieves the good of the individual and the good of the group . . . the gulf of white between the arches is where the there is no Hope.
Nearly 400 people are digging into Jared Loughner’s motives and they still can’t find blame for Sarah Palin.
“Waiter- disappointment all around- on me!”
Loughner put on a red g-string and then took photos of his Glock pistol held next to his naked butt. This behavior was clearly inspired by the MSNBC line up.
So, when do finger-pointers blame an internet movie for being held accountable:
@Tallgrass:
Not exactly:
More smoke and mirrors to protect socialist Democrats. Kennedy was murdered by a certified Marxist. McKinley was murdered by an avowed socialist. Lincoln was an abolitionist and was murdered by a Southern sympathizer. Garfield was an abolitionist and was murdered by a nutcase. The last 2 murders were definitely anti Republican. Isn’t it easy to project the evil of left wing causes? Learn your history folks. Republicans freed the black man and they vote Democrat. Go figure.
http://nation.foxnews.com/arizona-shooting-rampage/2011/01/18/tucson-shooting-victim-there-would-be-torture-and-then-ear-neckl
But he’s sorry now.
If the mental hospitals were not forced to close by the liberal elite back in the 70s, many of these loons would not be able to walk our streets as they do today. Would also be a solution to the so called “homeless” problem.
Sirhan Sirhan – the killer of Robert Kennedy. Wasn’t he clearly motivated by politics, specifically anti-semitism?
Another killer from the Left.
@minuteman26, #7:
Ronald Reagan, who had overseen the transition from institution-based psychiatric care to community mental health services as Governor of California, subsequently cut the federal funding of community mental health services as President. Deinstitutionalized patients who had become the responsibility of community mental health services found those treatment and support systems progressively diminished. With their support systems gone, thousands wound up homeless and living on the streets. The prison system has taken up a lot of the slack.
is this an advocacy of death panels?
Liberals freed the black man, liberal Republicans conservatives just wanted to keep the status quo
Lincoln was a Republican. So was Martin Luther King.
Jim Crow laws were put in place by Democrat state governments.
Putz.
@John ryan:
Hey Ryan! If I were you, I would ask the schools I attended to “please refund my tuition”.
@John ryan:
Peruse the quotes JR, see if they make you proud:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302102&fpart=1
Fuller on Democracy Now radio –
Good thing those on the left don’t subscribe to all that heated rhetoric that we evil, vile Conservatives do…
Just watch Taxi Driver. DeNiro’s character knew nothing about politics.
Folks, JR just posts stuff to get you upset. He knows he is intellectually inferior to those here. He doesn’t even try anymore.
@Greg #9:
Doesn’t minuteman have a point, though? Wasn’t it a series of liberal initiatives that made treating the homeless and the mentally ill very difficult? Starting in the 60s, there was a movement afoot to perceiving mental illness as a label for those who did not conform to societal norms; victims of repression by an intolerant society.
Author Thomas Szacz and fellow academics were claiming that mental illness was a prejudicial social construct and that displays of psychotic behavior were a result of being locked up rather than the other way around. Public sentiments were also being influenced by news reports of abuses occurring in mental institutions as well as the popularity of the book and movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.
Involuntary commitment laws and patients’ rights movement made it difficult to commit those who truly needed to be locked up for their own safety and that of society’s.
What exactly can Reagan’s policy decisions be held accountable for regarding the homeless and the mentally ill?
My two encounters in my city with mentally ill street people dates back to the early 70s. In 1975 my daughter and I spent 10 days in DC, within walking distance to the Capital. They were sleeping on the street grates, park benches, alleys and in the entry ways that led down to basement apartments. During the day we saw them washing their clothes in the fountains and spreading them out to dry on the marble around the Library of Congress.
Much of the problem began long before Reagan, by the time he came into office federal regulations, red tape were already in play and just who was it that controlled Congress from the 60s and all through his administration?
This is from an article Sally Satel published in the NY Times in 2003:
She goes on to suggest ways to change the system:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EFDD1230F932A35752C1A9659C8B63
Great comment, Missy. Excellent research there.
Really blows Greg’s revisionist history out of the water.