This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Jan. 10, 2011 - Was the weekend shooting in Arizona at the site of a public meeting by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords a small-scale but deadly example of the maxim that war is politics by other means?
Was it an isolated act by a mentally ill gunman that had no relationship to the overheated, vitriolic atmosphere that many commentators deplored in the wake of the gunfire in Tucson that left six people dead and the congresswoman plus a dozen others injured?
Or was it a little of both?
"I think there's no doubt that this young man clearly had some serious, serious issues," said Mike Kelley, a Democratic Party strategist in St. Louis, speaking about shooting suspect Jared Loughner.
"But there's no doubt about it that on both sides, the political rhetoric has elevated to such a level that is beyond what ought to be accepted. Politics is a substitute for violence. Unfortunately, sometimes violence makes its way into politics."
His GOP counterpart John Hancock dismisses any political dimension to the shooting at all.
"It's the act of a highly disturbed, emotionally sick individual," Hancock said. "It is reflective of him. I don't think it's reflective of the state of political discourse in America. I think it would be a mistake to attribute the random actions of a single deranged individual or try to extrapolate them to anything other than what they clearly are."
In the wake of the violence on a street corner where Giffords was holding a public meeting, local sheriff Clarence Dupnik denounced what he called "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government." Graphics of cross-hairs focused on certain congressional districts, including Giffords', were highlighted as evidence that rhetoric has gotten out of control.
Lana Stein, political science professor emerita at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says the fact that Loughner's violence erupted against a member of Congress shows that it is not simply a random act by an unbalanced gunman.
"He didn't go after his boss or something," she said, "so politics does have something to do with it.
"It's clear he went after the congresswoman. She had been targeted by the Tea Party, and when people are mixed up and in a climate where they can get guns easily and legally, they go after people. You have a climate that makes it more likely for something to happen. We just don't respect opponents in the political world anymore. We vilify them."
That kind of rhetoric upsets Gina Loudon, a local Tea Party leader.
"I think it's reprehensible for people to be pointing fingers," she said. "You see that finger pointing coming only from one side. To me, that says it all.
"It's fascinating that people would make it a political issue when people are really hurting. These are real people. A little girl is dead. How people can use this for political gain is beyond me. To point fingers at the right is not just a level of fantasy but a level of despicability we should not tolerate at all. I'm ashamed that people would act this way."
Former Missouri Sen. John C. Danforth, a Republican, also says it makes no sense to connect a disturbed individual with the general level of political discussion.
"It's not reasonable to draw a connection between the general state of ... political discourse and a person who appears to be terribly, terribly demented," he said. "I don't think that that's right. I don't see that at all.
"We've had a history, unfortunately, of having [violent acts by] demented people -- John Hinckley and Sirhan Sirhan and so forth. It's unfortunate, but that is our history. And I think that it's not accurate to try to tie it to the general state of political discourse."
That said, Danforth added that there clearly is a need for a calmer, more reasoned tone in politics.
"I think that the state of political discourse is awful," he said. "It's absolutely dreadful and it's a serious problem with our country. It makes it difficult -- so far, it's made it impossible -- to address really hard questions in a reasonable way.
"The hardest question is: What are we going to do with the national debt? You need a degree of comity to address such a question. We don't have it. And I think that that is a very serious problem."
UMSL political science professor Terry Jones thinks connecting the shootings to political rhetoric is, in many ways, an oversimplification.
"I think some of what I've seen in the media in the past 24 hours has been a reach, in making those connections.
"Nonetheless, we have a problem with civility in our society, and it's getting worse, not better. At the same time, we have a streak of violence in our society, both inside and outside the political environment, and we have mentally sick people. It's an unhappy mixture. It's a worrisome mixture."
Hancock said stronger efforts to disagree without becoming disagreeable -- or far worse -- are long overdue.
"American politics requires a robust debate," he said, "and nothing's wrong with having policy disagreements. I think it behooves everyone in elective office to do their very best to work together to find policy directions that will help the American people and put aside personally divisive rhetoric for the good of the country. Perhaps this tragedy will allow some of that to occur."
To Kelley, the shootings provide an opportunity "to take a step back and really put things into context things, and the rhetoric we're using. I think it's unfair to blame all of this on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Keith Olbermann. But the whole level of dialogue we have gotten to is irresponsible."
On her website, Loudon expressed this hope:
"Instead of blaming one another, could we please unite as a nation around the principle that this violence is never acceptable, regardless of party or political views? That will be the only victory in all of this, and is the best way to honor lives lost in this tragedy. Our flag is symbolic of victory through tragedy. Perhaps the busybodies could put down their keyboards and mount a flagpole today, as a voice of unity against all kinds of assaults on our freedoms, and in one voice, as the United States of America."
Danforth thinks that both sides have to share whatever blame people want to come up with.
"It's endemic," he said. "There is a lot of responsibility to go around, and we shouldn't just try to dump all the responsibility on one side."
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., thinks both sides need to refuse to engage in violent and vitriolic talk. He told CNN on Sunday:
"Don't we have an obligation, those of us in public life and those who cover us, to say this is beyond the bounds? It may be constitutionally permissible, but it shouldn't be acceptable rhetoric. We shouldn't invite it on the radio talk shows or the TV, at least without comment. We ought to say that just goes too far."
Are talk radio and 24/7 cable and the Internet to blame? Loudon says they should be viewed as a positive development.
"The beauty of the internet is that people can choose from several sources instead of being spoon-fed," she said. "I think when it all shakes out, people are better informed than they used to be.
"It raises the level of accountability for news sources that are out there. It has shed a ton of light on truth, and whenever you can do that, that's a good thing."
In the end, said Stein, whether the issues are from a generation or two ago -- civil rights or Vietnam -- or the deeply felt disagreements present today, everyone has to agree to tone things down.
"You lose something," she said. "You lose the sense of legitimacy. I've been a Democrat all my life, but that doesn't mean you have to think Republicans are vermin or trying to destroy America.
"You should be able to have different ways of looking at things and should be able to communicate and argue without having what we have now."