Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 8, 1995 TAG: 9505080016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MICHAEL G. AAMODT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
That Americans are stunned, angry, confused and scared about the bombing is natural and certainly understandable. We are stunned that such an event could happen in America, and more stunned that it was perpetrated by fellow Americans. We are angry that innocent people, children for goodness' sake, were killed and injured. We are confused about why it would occur and about the type of people who could commit such an act. We are scared that our government may not be able to protect us from similar events in the future.
As understandable as these emotions may be, we must be careful about the way in which we respond to this incident. It is natural to be angry, to want the perpetrators punished and to take measures to prevent future attacks. However, in such an emotional time, it is also natural to overreact.
Because of our anger and fear, we want the perpetrators severely punished and tough measures taken to prevent future attacks. In response to this anger, Attorney General Janet Reno has promised that the death penalty will be applied to the perpetrators, and President Clinton has asked for increased monitoring of militias and paramilitary groups. In addition, security will be increased at most federal buildings. Though some of these responses are reasonable, others will result in limitations that experts doubt will work and that civil rights groups such as the ACLU think will violate our Constitution.
Because of our confusion, we are seeking simple explanations. President Clinton and other Democrats would like us to believe that the bombing is the result of conservative talk shows and candid comments made by conservative politicians. Such an explanation would be convenient because it suggests that we can prevent future incidents by placing limits on public discourse.
However, such an explanation is not only unfounded, it is dangerous. Blaming the Oklahoma City tragedy on conservative rhetoric is as valid as blaming the Los Angeles riots on the liberal rhetoric of politicians such as Jesse Jackson or columnists such as Carl Rowan. The conservative and liberal rhetoric that we hear are not causes for events, they are public expressions of the deep-seated feelings held by many Americans.
Incidents such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the mob beating of Reginald Denny in Los Angeles are the result of psychologically unstable extremists such as Timothy McVeigh and Damon Williams. Such individuals are evil, psychologically disturbed, and don't need any inspiration from liberal or conservative mass-media sources for their ruthlessness.
To partially blame the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative or liberal discourse is also unfounded because, to date, we don't know the motivation for the bombing. The two most likely motivations appear to be that the bombing was either an attempt by a small number of people to extract revenge for the Waco incident or an actual terrorist attack by a well-organized anti-government organization. If the motivation is the former, the Oklahoma City incident can be seen as an isolated event best prevented from recurring by fixing obvious lapses in building security.
If the latter is the motivation, increased restrictions by the federal government play right into the hands of the terrorists. If the Oklahoma City incident is the result of a right-wing terrorist group, the terrorists' goals would have been to instill fear in the American people by demonstrating that their government is unable to protect them and then hope that the federal government will overreact by curtailing civil liberties such as freedom of movement and expression, thus causing the American people to revolt.
Now is the time for reason, not emotional reactions designed to curry political favor with the voters. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, President Clinton and columnist Carl Rowan are right when they say that many Americans are angry. However, placing limitations on free speech is not the answer. The way to prevent future violent incidents is to use open discussion to understand the anger felt by various segments in society.
Encouraging public discourse, no matter how extreme it can get, is more important now than ever. There is a segment of society, often called the ``angry white male,'' whose current level of anger is in part based on the perception that their freedom is being overly restricted by the federal government. Gun laws and school prayer provide excellent examples.
Other than a handful of extremists, few Americans actually believe that it is a good idea for people to have assault weapons or ``cop killer'' ammunition. Yet many Americans vote against the singular issue of gun control, not because they believe in automatic weapons, but because they are against the greater issue of government control of their private lives.
Likewise, in their minds, most Americans realize that their children can pray silently in a classroom or pray publicly during recess without the need for organized school prayer. Yet many Americans favor legislation involving school prayer, not because they want organized prayer in the schools, but again because they are against the greater issue of government control of their private lives.
As these two examples demonstrate, our concern and anger about the greater issue of individual freedom results in attitudes toward individual issues that may not be consistent with our actual beliefs about the individual issues. When seemingly unrelated issues as school prayer, gun control, sexual harassment, abortion, taxes, building codes, environmental regulations and public discourse are combined, ``Angry Americans'' feel that the government is placing too many restrictions on our private lives, even though we may actually agree with the reasoning behind a particular restriction. The ``Sagebrush Revolution'' that elected Ronald Reagan and the ``Contract With America'' in the 1994 election symbolize the American people's concern with attempts to restrict individual rights.
Interestingly, the Angry American's concern for individual rights is not consistent across issues, and often results in some very hypocritical thinking. The issue of abortion provides such an example. Most feminist organizations espouse a woman's ``right to choose'' what she will do with her body. Yet a year or so ago these same groups supported a motion at the University of Virginia to forbid faculty-student relationships, thus denying students the ``right to choose'' who they could date.
Likewise, the same people who want to deny a woman the ``right to choose'' an abortion become angry if they are denied ``the right to choose'' whether or not to purchase an assault weapon.
It is because of this concern for individual rights, and the inconsistent way in which we often apply these rights, that we should embrace the expression of the varied viewpoints of a Rush Limbaugh and a Carl Rowan or of a Bill Clinton and a Newt Gingrich. Increased public discourse, not restriction or ignorance, is the only way to calm the Angry American.
Michael G. Aamodt is an associate professor of psychology at Radford University, and former national president of the Society of Police and Criminal Psychology.
by CNB