Do you agree that the "eliminationist rhetoric" cited by Krugman is a problem and is out of bounds? Are you denying that such rhetoric exists, or that the preponderance of it comes from the right? More broadly, putting aside the case of Jared Loughner, is it a valid question to ask whether such rhetoric in general risks tipping the unhinged into violence?
Given this story today:
An Arizona Republican Party District Chairman resigned shortly after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and 18 others on Saturday. According to The Arizona Republic, Anthony Miller had been subject to verbal attacks and internet postings by apparent Tea Party members, and said he feared for his safety.
"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller told the Republic. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."
I think these are very valid questions to ask. And Miller's not the only Arizona Republican who fears the Tea Party enough to resign.
Posts
6 comments:
...I'm going to pose the legitimate questions that Greg Sargent brought up today as an open discussion:...
OK, I'll bite. And I'll be reasonable.
Do you agree that the "eliminationist rhetoric" cited by Krugman is a problem and is out of bounds? Are you denying that such rhetoric exists, or that the preponderance of it comes from the right?
See, right there liberals want to define the terms and be the arbiters. You know that I wouldn't accept that condition one bit, and I've a pretty good guess you wouldn't accept it if conservatives defined the terms and were the arbiters, especially if the right started the discussion by saying this rhetoric comes more from the left than the right (and back it up with documentation). That is as it is; free speech is just that, free speech.
You and I both realistically know (or should) that we could find similar rhetoric and similar amounts of rhetoric from those who are our ideological opponents. And what are we talking about? I mean what Krugman is calling "eliminationist rhetoric" isn't the same as death threats. Sports is full of such rhetoric, yet nobody in their right mind (unlike someone deranged like Loughner) confuses that rhetoric with legitimate threats. In fact, I believe the vast majority of Americans (let's say 99%) would be insulted to think that they are that stupid and susceptible to such rhetoric (from either side) since those same Americans are decent people to begin with. All people get angry, but just about all of those who do get angry don't let their emotions get out of hand. Those very few that do have either mental issues or character flaws that leads to criminality. As we saw with Loughner, he had problems that had nothing to do with what others say.
I mentioned RFK, Jr.'s piece at HuffPo before, where he blamed the right for the death of his uncle, yet never once mentioned JFK's murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald, who in no way was part of "the right". Nothing was going to stop Oswald from attempting his crime, as was the case with Loughner; their violence came not from others, but from their own minds. Dallas could have been the most Kennedy-friendly city in the world in November, 1963 and Oswald would still have attempted the assassination. Which, as far as I'm concerned, allows me to provide a "no" answer to Sargent's next question:
More broadly, putting aside the case of Jared Loughner, is it a valid question to ask whether such rhetoric in general risks tipping the unhinged into violence?
I answer "no" because you can't set aside the case of Jared Loughner, just as RFK, Jr. shouldn't have set aside the actual murderer of his uncle in his piece. It twists what actually happened into something that didn't happen, a something not based on the facts.
As far as those Arizona Republicans quitting politics, that's their business. It's too bad they tried to tie politics to the murders last week, although since they made their statements so very soon after the killings, it was understandable since many facts about Loughner hadn't come in yet. It sounds like politics there is of the rough-and-tumble variety, kind of like many other places, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If I'm reading this correctly, you reject the entire argument because it's all free speech.
I disagree because I think there are some on the right who seek to undermine any Democrat from being able to exercise legitimate governance. The calls of Democrats being socialists, tyrants and despots for passing legislation, the birther movement delegitimizing the President as an American, the call for Second Amendment remedies when the First Amendment doesn't work, all of that is potentially dangerous stuff.
There is a difference between saying "We disagree and want to remove you from power through means at the ballot box" and "We disagree and want to remove you by any means necessary."
I'm splitting this into two comments.
If I'm reading this correctly, you reject the entire argument because it's all free speech.
You have it right.
I disagree because I think there are some on the right who seek to undermine any Democrat from being able to exercise legitimate governance.
And I've seen the same thing from the left against Republicans, so that's awash.
The calls of Democrats being socialists, tyrants and despots for passing legislation, the birther movement delegitimizing the President as an American,...
And I've seen and heard the calls of Republicans being fascists, Nazis, racists, tyrants and despots for passing legislation, the Truther movement delegitimizing the President, and so on. Politics is a tough business.
...the call for Second Amendment remedies when the First Amendment doesn't work,...
Which are usually followed up by attempts at First Amendment "remedies" that are wholly unconstitutional. Along with unconstitutional attempts to ignore the Second Amendment.
All those things you mention are metaphors. Granted some are tough-sounding metaphors, but they are metaphors nonetheless. As seen with Oswald before and Loughner today, these metaphors in no way had any effect on the crimes these killers committed. The facts prove it.
The people of this country don't spend their time "drawin' their guns" every time they get pissed off at someone. It just doesn't happen. There would be utter chaos, which even in these tough times, is just not occurring. And those that do "draw guns" are so few that punishing the rest of us for their actions, or a good portion of the rest of us, is unacceptable, especially since the reasons a criminal does what he/she does are much more complex than attempting to pin the blame, in a simplistic manner, to the sloganeering of someone not attached to the criminal.
You need to give the American people, conservatives as well as liberals (and all others in between), more credit than that. I do or I wouldn't believe what I said above.
You know Steve it looks like Zandar is admitting he's vulnerable to suggestions and metaphors and doesn't know the difference between political speech and "eliminationist rhetoric".
Tougher-minded Americans know better, I suppose.
Post a Comment