In the wake of mass violence like the one last night people often say itâ€™s not time to “for politics.” You can set your watch by it. Here’s the President’s spokesperson, Sarah Sanders.
Sarah Sanders: We don't talk gun control after a mass shooting — its a tragedy.
It would be like talking Puerto Rican debt during Irma pic.twitter.com/SKhi9CqNmk
— Alex Morash (@AlexMorash) October 2, 2017
Not sure about that analogy underneath the video, by the way. The point in any case is that you don’t talk about the political angle of these things for some determinate period after they happen. Not to be facetious, but in the US they happen with such regularity that you’re never really out of the hot zone.
Back to the point. I have the sneaky feeling that â€œletâ€™s not politicize thisâ€ means â€œletâ€™s not have a disagreement now.â€ This naturally favors the status quo ante, because there’s a restriction onÂ admitting or considering new evidence for some particular position. I made that argument here.
What strikes me as odd about all of this is that we have all sorts of discussions in the immediate aftermath of events–we might describe them as ethical, metaphysical, and epistemological.Â For we have conversations about what happened, about the quality of our evidence, or about the heroism of some of the people involved or the evil of the perpetrator. All of them involve some level of disagreement, uncertainty, revision, or retraction. So if the claim that we shouldn’t get political rests of fear of going wrong, we already seem to tolerate a fair amount of that.