Why Aren't We Calling Loughner a Terrorist?

Why Aren't We Calling Loughner a Terrorist?
By: Charles Ellison
Political Analyst


I can't help but wonder why folks are so afraid to call the mass shooting in Tuscon, Arizona an act 0f terrorism.

The fear 0f the "T" word seems almost palpable in describing the gruesome events that took place this past Saturday. There is little explanation 0rreasoning f0rthe omission, except that it's very obvious what most Americans won't call 22-year-old Jared Loughner. It goes without saying that the man is deranged. Fairly obvious that he's unstable. But, tell us what we don't know. Get straight to the core 0f the matter here. Let's not fool ourselves , everyone else struggling to make sense out 0f it. Loughner is a terrorist, clearly fit within the strictest definition 0f the term.

While other top public officials tip-toed around it, Secretary 0f State Hillary Clinton almost went there, just short 0f dropping the "T" word. Instead, she chose "extremist." While clearly holding back, it was one 0f the braver rhetorical stands we've heard in the past few days. Her comparison to the Middle Eastern "extremism" we routinely see plastered on global headlines is sure to raise a few brows , 'how-dare-she' remarks back home, especially since she said it while in Abu Dhabi.

But, let's keep it real. The "T" term gets quickly applied within every second a suicide bomber blasts a busy street corner in Pakistan 0rwhen a crowded European commuter train is vaporized. We find some sort 0f geopolitical logic, however violent , horrific, to explain the indiscriminate mass killings 0f innocent civilians in various corners 0f the world. Even before responsibility is investigated 0radmitted by some obscure political fringe group wanting their spot blown, we're already using the "T" word.

When a "crazy" white guy with a gun, wound up on polarized talking points , manifestos, indiscriminately kills innocent Americans in broad daylight, it takes several days in the aftermath before the larger public will even accept a hint 0f premeditation. Typically, the collective American psyche will initially trivialize the event by calling the perpetrat0r"deranged" 0r"mentally unstable." The social response script is fashioned to fake us into a false sense 0f security. It's isolated, they say. Just one crazed nut with a gun.

That dude who flew his plane into an IRS building? Isolated. 0rthe cat who waited for, scoped, then killed three Pittsburgh police officers? Crazy. What about the man who shot at the Panama City school board then shot himself? Off the edge.

Brown skin man with bombs strapped to his torso? Oh, that's a terrorist.

Yet, in every instance, the "isolated" 0r"crazed" Americans each expressed some form 0f political reasoning f0rcommitting the act. Loughner, whose elaborate musings are outlined in lengthy Internet entries on MySpace , YouTube, was apparently hanging with anti-government dudes who probably have posters 0f Sarah Palin in a bikini brandishing a semi-automatic pri0rto the attack.

So, what's the difference between a mass political killing in Tuscon, Arizona , the same in Any Town, Middle East?

Part 0f it is that we don't want to accept that Americans are actually capable 0f politically motivated destruction. Clearly, the level 0f invective in our political discourse has reached a feverish pitch in recent years, matched by the worrisome lack 0f civility , old fashioned decency we use to pride ourselves on. It's another conversation, but we're much meaner, much more hyper-competitive , much less compassionate -- some can fairly argue with that assessment, especially after 400 years 0f slavery , institutional racism peppered by mass lynching. We don't want to admit it, but we all talk about how foul our social attitude is these days.

But, as we enter this 150th Anniversary 0f the Civil War, we are afraid to accept the comparisons. While the North vs. South battle lines disappeared with every history lesson, we can see a scary repeat 0f similar passions which led to the first cannon shots at Fort Sumter in 1861. Congress, in the 1850s, was also a scene 0f unadulterated political mayhem, Members beating each other senseless on the House flo0r, Senators drawing guns on one another. While it's not that bad today, we are seeing an alarming deficit 0f decorum in the House chamber which, if left unchecked, could lead to unbridled outbursts 0f ideology we'll end up regretting one day.

We'd be irresponsible not to reassess our national discourse. There are serious consequences to the ideological bubbles we've created while we self-isolate ourselves in Facebook profiles , Twitter accounts, interacting only with those we agree with.

Disagreeing is our national legacy , right, but how we disagree is a national discipline we should embrace before Tuscon becomes the norm rather than the exception.

By: The eFoods Global Business Network