Sparkman murder exhibits culture of violence taking over across US

Originally published October 1, 2009.

Obama’s administration thus far has certainly been a controversial one for many, but it also seems to have unintentionally spawned something much less anticipated—a culture of violent response to politics.

Bill Sparkman was 51 years old. He lived in London, Kentucky, where he worked as a substitute teacher and classroom aide. He was a cancer survivor. He was also a part-time census worker.

On September 13, Sparkman was found dead at Hoskins Cemetary in the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky. He was bound, gagged, and almost naked. Though his feet rested on the ground, there was a noose around his neck tied to a nearby tree branch. The word “Fed” was scrawled on his chest in red marker, and his census ID was taped to his neck.

Close on the heels of Bill Sparkman’s death came the posting and removal of a Facebook poll asking whether participants thought President Obama should be killed. And of course, all of this follows increasingly aggressive demonstrations at town hall meetings and healthcare reform discussions at which people have turned out with guns and posters calling for the death of Obama.

Obama’s administration thus far has certainly been a controversial one for many, but it also seems to have unintentionally spawned something much less anticipated—a culture of violent response to politics.

It’s not as though people have never committed destructive deeds over political reasons or disagreements. It’s not even as though worse acts have never been carried out. The disconcerting aspect is that this aggression is highly public and directed at one common target—Barack Obama and anything perceived as having to do with him: legislation, speeches, public gatherings, you name it, right down to census workers.

Given what was written on his body, it seems Bill Sparkman paid dearly, not specifically for his census work or his personal life, but for his connection to our current president.

But the motivation for such serious enmity remains unclear. Accusations of racism have been made left and right, and while I think issues of race play especially heavily into the evolving dynamics of American culture right now, it seems too cut-and-dry to attribute this inclination toward violence strictly to racial tension.

One of the most confusing elements of this rabid anti-Obama sentiment is that, though some of it had existed before he was even elected, much of it has been amplified by debates on healthcare reform and stimulus spending. While having fervid feelings and opinions about both issues is quite valid, I can’t wrap my head around the pseudo-logic that leads to these overt threats of violence. How does someone make the jump from criticism of Obama’s (and Congress’s, for that matter) suggestions for economic recovery and healthcare reform to a decision that the clear solution is simply to suggest or carry out the president’s murder?

How does someone who comes to a well-researched conclusion on either side of the healthcare debate feel so intensely about it that killing someone is justifiable? How do people get riled up more over Obama speaking to schoolchildren about working hard and making a commitment to their country (which most presidents notably do, even to adult audiences) than the fact that we are at war?

More importantly, how do we get off the track we’re on? It’s a typical response for people to shut out everything someone else says when their beliefs differ on a single issue—something much more common than politically-motivated violence. But until we can determine what has pushed political disagreement to this openly hostile level and why television news media seems so intent on urging it on—until we can figure out why Bill Sparkman was murdered in a place without a history of politically-motivated violence—questions are all we have.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.