(continued from previous page)
Sanders said in a statement that he was “sickened” by yesterday’s tragedy. What’s puzzling is that he didn’t condemn all the divisive rhetoric from himself, anonymous-source news, and other Democrats when he has jumped at every opportunity to blame violent acts on Republican rhetoric.

When Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot, he sent out a fundraising email that read, “In light of all of this violence — both actual and threatened — is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?”

He went on to demand that Arizona Sen. John McCain — who wasn’t even remotely connected to shooter Jared Lee Loughner’s Facebook page — denounce “increasingly violent” right-wing rhetoric and “exert his influence to create a civil political environment.” Even though it turned out Loughner was too insane to subscribe to any sort of coherent ideology.

[lz_related_box id=”810096″]

After the Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015, Sanders tweeted, “I hope people realize that bitter rhetoric can have unintended consequences.”

If Bernie Sanders believes all this, why doesn’t he go further than being “sickened” by something that obviously sickens everyone and denounce the villainization of Republicans? Or the increasingly violent #resistance rhetoric of Democrats? Why doesn’t he denounce the false, apocalyptic narratives the media are pushing?

Sanders is being lauded in the media for being “sickened” by a mass shooting, and that’s better than nothing. But he should be called out for hypocrisy if he has suddenly stopped believing that over-the-top rhetoric fuels violent actions.

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.[lz_pagination]