There is hardly a better way to degrade the entire idea of political speech than by classing everyone who is in any way critical of the government as "anti-government". Such a label creates two camps, the camp of government and the camp of everyone unhappy with government, and defines the latter camp by the actions of a psychotic killer, who was unhappy with government, grammar and higher mathematics, among a seemingly inexhaustible supply of other things. Such a course is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also far more dangerous than slapping a bullseye across a congressman.

In 2007, Carlos Hartmann murdered a Dutch student, because according to his lawyer, "he hates soldiers, and says that the army kills people, so it would be legitimate if he were also to kill someone ... from the American military -- or from its NATO allies." I don't recall any Republican congressmen suggesting that maybe Michael Moore and his ilk should tone it down a little or asked whether Hartmann had been influenced by the extreme anti-war rhetoric of the left, even though Hartmann, unlike Loughner, actually seemed to be operating on the same track. If we go by the low standard of proof being deployed in the Loughner case, then Michael Moore and every prominent anti-war activist in America should take responsibility for their excessive tone and rhetoric that might have contributed to the murder of Thijs Geers.

That's the problem with speaking censoriously about the threat of "Dangerous Words". Much like proposing to repeal the filibuster, it's one of those moves that works only for as long as your party is the majority party. We don't need the 1st Amendment to protect the political speech of those in power and their supporters. There isn't a country in the world where that's in danger. We could tear up the Constitution tomorrow with complete confidence that the rights of those in power will not be infringed on in any way. What we need the 1st Amendment for is to protect the speech of those who aren't in power, whether it's the political opposition or the ordinary citizen angry at the government.

The idea that we should compromise the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights because of the actions of a madman is untenable. And for the ruling party to trade in rhetoric that undermines the protections of the Bill of Rights for political gain or personal power is a horrifying act that should be universally condemned. Jared Loughner might not have known what he was doing, but the ruling party politicians who are trading on his crime in order to suppress free speech have no such defense at their disposal. They know exactly what they are doing by promoting the idea that vocally criticizing the government is a dangerous act. Criticizing the government is indeed a dangerous act, in the People's Republic of China, in Zimbabwe, Belarus or the UAE. In America however, criticizing the government is not a crime, but a civic duty.

Free speech is not the cause of political violence-- it is the best way of averting a culture of political violence. The freedom to condemn and vote out politicians is the reason why we generally have so little actual political violence. So long as reform is possible and the policies of one administration can be undone by another, and the ballot box, the Supreme Court and the Constitution serve as checks on the power of government-- then terrorism will never become a means by which Americans will try to change the system. But globally, criminalizing political dissent has often opened the door to political violence. Using force against the opposition results in a cycle of violence with no off switch.

It is clear by now that Loughner had issues with Congresswoman Gifford that long predated Sarah Palin's presence on the national stage, and that his politics were an incoherent schizophrenic mess produced by misfiring chemicals not vocal talk show hosts. To the extent that he could be said to have politics, they were more left than right, but mostly topsy turvy. Yet even if Loughner were everything that some Democrats have painted him as. If he had spent every day listening to Rush Limbaugh and every night listening to Glenn Beck. If he stumped for Sarah Palin and dressed up as Patrick Henry to attend Tea Party rallies-- then the response should still be exactly the same.

The very idea that we should outlaw violent metaphors in political speech is a sign of contempt for the character and morals of the American citizen. And as has been amply demonstrated by now, no single party has a monopoly on such metaphors. The American people are not children, nor are they a country of madmen one wrong syllable away from going after each other's throats. To think that way is to grant implicit consent to tyranny, for what better foundation can there be for tyranny than the assumption that men and women cannot govern themselves, and instead must be governed unconsensually for their own protection.

Protection can be a dangerous thing. The policies that one party considers protective, the opposition often considers repressive. The Bush Administration argued that its policies were there to protect Americans, while its liberal opposition charged that they were repressive. The Obama Administration has claimed that its imposition of ObamaCare was done to protect Americans, while its conservative opposition has branded them repressive. But the acid test of repression is not the word, but the deed. It was difficult to show how the average American lost rights under the Bush Administration, but when every American is forced to pay money to the political donors of the Democratic party by way of the ObamaCare mandate, then the case is easy enough to make. And when the administration's media organs then compound this by politicizing a madman's attack in order to suppress criticism of their policies, then they slide further into the repression column.

The Democrats who have jumped on the Loughner shootings would argue that such criticism is dangerous, but that is not so. It is the lack of such criticism that is truly dangerous. The United States may occasionally lose an elected official to an attack, but it has not had mobs battling tanks in the streets, physical brawls in congress or a domestic terrorist group with a wide base of support in some time. Americans watch such scenes on television happening in other countries, without taking part in them. But those politicians who yammer on about the need to ban dangerous words, would undermine the open system that is the best defense against political violence, and risk importing political violence into the United States, replacing dangerous words with dangerous deeds. While the murder of a judge and the wounding of a congresswoman are crimes to be condemned, they do not threaten our freedoms and our way of life. But putting a bullseye on the Constitution may not spill any blood, threatens not just the victims of a single crime, but us all.

When one crazed or ideologically obsessed gunman starts shooting in Arizona, people condemn him and start bemoaning the state of their society. How about a place with ten million people like that who are treated as heroes?

America this week is awash in a huge and passionate debate over whether angry political disagreements and harsh criticisms of certain views or groups inspired the attack on an American congresswoman (Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel, by the way). I'm not going to enter into that argument right now but I want to point out the Middle Eastern ramifications of what's going on here.

Let's say that the proportion of lies, slanders, extremism,and incitement in the American discourse is one-tenth of one percent of all the words spoken on controversial issues. The equivalent figure for the Middle East is well over 95 percent.

In addition to that tone, there is not only a total lack of balance but an absence of the other side altogether. It's all one-sided.

And in addition to those two points, the level of factual accuracy is farther away from reality than anywhere else in the world. (Though, admittedly, that gap has been narrowing in recent years as Western academic and journalistic standards decline).

And in addition to those three points, while extremists tend to be marginal in the United States, they are in control--either politically or at least setting the terms of discussion--throughout the Arabic-speaking and Muslim-majority worlds.

Thus, the level of incitement, imbalance, lies, and the hegemony of hatred in that region towers above that in the West like the World Trade Center towers over an anthill.

Oh, the World Trade Center doesn't exist any more. Well, that has something to do with this situation, too, doesn't it?

Or to put it another way, in the Middle East, the crackpot is often (usually?) given more credit than the rational or factual.

I won't take your time with lots of examples but one might start with the widespread belief that the U.S. government or Israel carried out the September 11 attacks, coupled with the contradictory belief--held often by the same people--that it was something to be proud about. Or all the ridiculous conspiracy theories about Israel, as in the cases mentioned here and here. Or the editorial in al-Ahram, the most important Egyptian newspaper, that claimed all terrorism in Iraq was a U.S. plot to divide Muslims.

Here's one of many such items that come across my desk each day. Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official newspaper of the PA, has articles, the most recent being December 31 and January 4, accusing Israel of planning to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque. In the newspaper's words, Israel's projects in Jerusalem "are part of [the efforts] causing the collapse of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in order to establish Solomon's Temple upon its ruins."

The al-Aqsa Institute for Religious Affairs, which the PA controls, accuses Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of being behind this "Satanic plot."

Or, this one: All mothers undoubtedly love their children but only in Iran there's now a special day when mothers take their babies to a ceremony where they vow to make them martyrs in Jihad. (Funny, contrary to what is taught in Western schools they don't define Jihad as inner spiritual striving.) And not many mothers in Western democratic states hold celebrations after their kids blow themselves up in an attempt to murder as many civilians as possible.

Now, let me ask some questions:

--If America is horrified in claiming that a tiny amount of mostly marginal extremism inspires one mad man to murder six people and try to kill a politician, how much violence can be traced to hundreds of thousands of mosques, media, teachers, and mainstream politicians daily preaching hatred literally millions of times a day?

--If the discourse throughout the Arabic-speaking world, Iran, increasingly in Turkey, and generally in Muslim-majority countries is almost 100 percent incitement, how can there be partners for peace or a hope of stability? What good do concessions do when the next day the culture of incitement and hatred goes on at full speed?

--If the degree of anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-Christian incitement is 100,000 times more intense and mainstream than any "Islamophobic" discourse in the West, while mitigating discourse--i.e., empathy, positive images, etc., toward "the other"--is one thousandth of a percent less, then which of these phenomenon is a greater threat and problem?

--How about having to deal with countries and political movements run by the equivalent of Jared Loughner? How about President Jared Loughner in possession of nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe you off the map? Jared Loughner in control of the UN Human Rights Council? Groups led and run by Jaret Loughner's given far more credibility in the Western media than the democratic states they seek to destroy?

I want to make it clear that I am not saying Middle East leaders, militants, and opinionmakers are mentally ill and are in need of psychiatric help. What I am saying is that their grasp on the real world is tenuous; that they are violent and capable of unpredictable actions; that they cannot be swayed by logical arguments or factual presentations; and that they define their interests and goals in ways far different from a pragmatic approach.

And even though there are many people who know better, they have to shut up to protect themselves or at least limit themselves to watering down the dominant rhetoric somewhat to try to moderate the debate.

If you doubt the above paragraph try spending a few decades reading the speeches of Arab and Iranian leaders, newspaper articles, and political declarations. Look at the results on the pavements of streets of terrorist attacks that deliberately have targeted civilians which are then cheered by the multitudes.

But of course Middle Eastern dictators and ideologues do have specific goals in mind that they may pursue systematically. Consider, though, the following examples:

Egyptian and Syrian dictators threaten war with Israel to curry domestic support and regional influence. Very rational. Result: 1967 War.

Iraq's leader feels threatened by Iran and sees opportunity to gain regional hegemony. Result: Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's leader seeks to reward his people with loot, underestimates U.S.resolve: Result: Invasion of Kuwait and ensuing U.S.-Iraq war. Iraq's leader wants to look tough, pretends he is getting nuclear weapons. Result: 2003 war.

Usama bin Ladin wants to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and install a radical Islamist state. He comes up with a coherent strategy for doing so. Result: September 11, 2001.

Yasir Arafat wants to wipe Israel off the map rather than get a Palestinian state soon, end the occupation, and improve his people's lives. Result: Unnecessary decades of bloodshed, hatred, and suffering.

So on one level, their behavior and strategies do make sense. But from a pragmatism is better than all-or-nothing extremism; material improvement is better than suffering; realistic examination of the balance of forces rather than fantasy-based; peace is preferable to destructive and losing war; finding a solution where both sides benefit rather than continuing conflict standpoint?

No.
--And why should the overwhelming majority of Western schools, media, academics, officials, and so on pretend that the above facts don't exist?

Or let me put it more graphically: If a man goes out to shoot a politician whose policies he doesn't like then in America he is likely to be insane. If a man goes out to shoot members of an ethnic or other group he doesn't like, then in America (unless perhaps he's an Islamist terrorist), he is considered a terrorist or someone committing a hate crime.

But in the Middle East, people are almost considered insane if they do NOT do these things, or at least support others performing such deeds. And as public opinion polls demonstrate, those are not considered to be evil, marginal lunatics but heroes whose example should be followed.

Might this indicate that the proportion of self-flagellation over self-defense in the Western world is a tad too high?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may think herself clever by telling students in the United Arab Emirates that the Arizona shooting is comparable to the September 11 attacks and shows that America and the Arab world have a similar problem with terrorism. In fact, though, she is reinforcing Arab complacency and self-justification (everyone has terrorism and there's nothing special about us in that regard) and making it harder to achieve progress.

One, or at most two, crazies acting on their own with no popular backing or financing do not exactly compare with an organized group with thousands of members, with operations stretching from Morocco through Asia, being given safe haven by governments, with their world view being reinforced by massive religious and governmental institutions, and cheered on by millions of sympathizers or at least well-wishers!

Might this indicate in some way that there are certain differences in some other societies that make them think and act a bit different from Western democracies?

PS: The logical outcome of this is the Fort Hood massacre where the terrorist yelled "Allahu Akhbar!" as he shot down Americans, yet we were told to draw no conclusion from this or the mountain of evidence that he was a revolutionary Islamist.

I have not yet heard that the murderer in Tucson chanted, "Rush Limbaugh Akhbar!" even once.