State Senator Barry Finegold: “Pull the Personal Out Of Political Debate”
Massachusetts State Senator Barry Finegold (D-Andover) / Second Essex Middlesex District
Merrimack Valley State Senator Barry Finegold (D-Andover) who represents the Second Essex Middlesex District wrote a column for today’s Eagle-Tribune. In the face of the Tuscon tragedy of last weekend he urges all of us to “to take a step back and evaluate whether what we are saying and how we are saying it is contributing to a healthy democratic discourse.”
Senator Finegold knows Representative Gabrielle Giffords and he shares his thoughts here:
I am deeply saddened by what happened to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this past weekend. I did not know her well, but we crossed paths from time to time, and as a public official what happened to her hits close to home.
People and political pundits will try to interpret this event in many ways. I don’t believe one thing or one group led to this awful act. We don’t know the facts yet, and it could turn out that this particular attack was not politically motivated. However, this is perhaps the opportunity to take a step back and evaluate whether what we are saying and how we are saying it is contributing to a healthy democratic discourse…
Read the rest of his column here in the Eagle-Tribune.
6 Responses to State Senator Barry Finegold: “Pull the Personal Out Of Political Debate”
Ugh, how many more times do we have to hear this lecture? Enough.
Perhaps if the legislature didn’t treat the taxpayers with contempt we wouldn’t be so angry at them. They bring it on themselves when they drag the bones of the felons Finneran, DiMasi, and Flaherty’s to the House of Representatives and give them a standing ovation. They do it to themselves when they accept pay raises like they did last year. They bring it upon themselves when they have people like former Probation Commissioner John O’Brien around.
As long as they keep treating us like chumps, people will continute to be angry at the legislature and treat them the same way.
“They bring it on themselves…”
Please expound, because you could’t possibly be trying to suggest that getting shot in the head is a predictable consequence of political disagreement.
Um, no Jack I am not. I said they bring us “being angry” upon themselves.
Nice try though.
This is tricky business, Brian.
Individual anger, should it reach the point of armed action, is criminal.
However, I’m sypathetic to the notion of “2nd Amendment remedies,” if we are talking about a sizable group resisting the oppression of the government. The means of armed resistance is exactly what our Founders bequethed us.
I’m not talking Ruby Ridge, more like the succession of the South. There needs to be a critical mass of Americans to justify a “2nd Amendment remedy.” And most important of all, the action must be in defense of our Constitutional principles. The succession efforts of the South failed that criteria.
In the modern age, with social mixing from state to state and station to station, I don’t think you would ever reach the required critical mass. So, ultimately, political rhetoric soliciting emotions to such a call is grossly irresponsible. As the lone wolves or band of insurgents will be crushed beneath the full force of law enforcement.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that will stop lazy, unimaginative politicians from using this particular crutch. Especially since they are isolated from the dirty work, far removed from where the ax meets the grindstone. When the sparks fly, it gets dangerous.
The Arizone shooter wasn’t angry, but mentailly ill. So what is the conclusion then, that the personal attacks as part of public discourse cause mental illness?
You confused me Jack.
“Mentally ill” has yet to be determined. Thats a legal distinction I think at this point.