There’s a weird reversal going on in the debate over the propriety of inflammatory political rhetoric that has been sparked by Saturday’s shootings. During the Bush administration, conservatives frequently argued that criticism of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq encouraged our enemies. Liberals responded that these attacks were intended to silence dissent, and conservatives pointed out that no one had been legally silenced and that there was no right to speak without facing criticism. In the wake of the massacre in Arizona, however, it is liberals who are saying that conservative rhetoric about liberal politicians encourages violence (in this case, by domestic extremists), conservatives who feel that their dissent is under attack, and liberals who are responding that, as Matthew Yglesias put it, “Free speech guarantees the right to engage in irresponsible political rhetoric; doesn’t guarantee freedom from being criticized for it.” And with everyone in lizard brain mode, no one seems to notice the role reversal that has taken place.