The Dangers of Demagoguery
| July 28th, 2008Well, I came home from school this evening to find this on my Google homepage.
An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire and killing two people at a Unitarian Universalist church apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies, including its acceptance of gays, police said Monday.A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson’s SUV indicated that he targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because “he hated the liberal movement” and was upset with “liberals in general, as well as gays,” according to Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV.
Adkisson, 58, had a shotgun and 76 shells with him when he entered the church Sunday during a children’s performance of the musical “Annie.” Six adults were wounded in the attack.
Tonight in class, we discussed the 1957 integration of Little Rock Central High School. The thing that people don’t remember, especially in the North, is that Arkansas was considered a moderate southern state, and Little Rock was a moderate city within it. The Arkansas State Universitiy at Fayetteville integrated in 1948, Little Rock city buses were integrated by 1956, and the Little Rock school board was actively planning on desegregating their high schools. Things were going … if not swimmingly, then at least not unspeakably horribly.
All that changed, of course, when Arkansas governor (and douchebag) Orval Faubus, in a bid to win political support from segregationists and fend off challenges from his political right, ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending the high school. There were riots. Eisenhower ended up federalizing the Arkansas National Guard and mobilized members of the 101st Airborne to protect black students on their way to and from classes. Acid was thrown in the eyes of one of the students. The next year Faubus shut down all Little Rock high schools rather than allow them to be integrated.
I’m sure you all know the story.
The reason I bring it up is that there was every expectation that integration of Little Rock Central would go smoothly, until Governor Faubus decided to demagogue in an effort to win votes. There’s even a Time magazing article: Making a Crisis in Arkansas. The entire situation was manufactured.
What’s my point?
Demagoging has consequences. Appealing to hate and bigotry creates more hate and bigotry. It creates riots. It creates vandalism. It creates murder.
We have a president who campaigned for governor on the promise that in his administration, consensual sex between adult males would be considered a crime. We have an entire political party that sees nothing wrong with the idea that in the year 2008, gay people in most states still aren’t allowed to marry the people they love. We have respected (well, Jonah Goldberg, so maybe not respected, but tolerated) conservative pundits who apparently in all seriousness believe that Adolf Hitler was a liberal.
Do I think that they actually believe this? Sometimes, sure. Sometimes not. It doesn’t matter.
As surely as I lay the Little Rock riots at the feet of Orval Faubus, I lay the assault on this church at the feet of those who have claimed that gay marriage would destroy western civilization and those who equate liberals with Nazis.
See, it turns out that when you said all that shit . . . people were listening. Jim D. Adkisson was listening.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
[...] The Dangers of Demagoguery [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Guns, Killing, and People.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 5:55 am
[...] As Myca, over at Alas, a Blog, puts it, “See, it turns out that when you said all that shit . . . people were listening. Jim D. Adkisson was listening.” [...]
This comment was written by Decency « Tiny Cat Pants.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Jim D. was listening to people who said things he agreed with. When they said that liberal philosophies were going to lead to the destruction of America, he was listening to them. But it’ s my guess that those authors called for solving the problem via free speech and campaigning and voting. Is there anything in these authors’ work that says “Go out and start blowing away liberals with a shotgun”? To say that someone is dreadfully wrong and immoral and that they should be strongly opposed in the marketplace of ideas and the political arena is not equivalent to calling for their physical destruction. His selection of this church probably had a lot more to do with his divorce and his ex-wife’s membership there than anything else. His actions are his sickness and responsibility and no one else’s.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 8:44 am
This is the third or fourth major case of violence bred by demagogues in Tennessee this year. The first was the burning of the Islamic Center in Columbia, TN, by three men affiliated with Christian Identity. And now this. Maybe they’ll eventually realize just how horrible the philosophies being spewed on talk radio actually are and stop listening.
This comment was written by WordK.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 8:45 am
RonF: David Neiwert has expounded, almost ad nauseam, on the question you rhetorically ask. the answer is yes, some of them do say essentially that, and some of their listeners act on it.
his blog’s sidebar has links to entire series of posts he’s assembled on the subject; do go read, he’s a much better writer than i.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thanks, Nomen. That was almost exactly what I was going to say and link to.
The answer, Ron, is that yes, far more often than I am comfortable with, there’s talk on the right about ‘eliminating’ liberals. It’s a problem that has been noted long before this most recent incident.
But there’s an additional thing at work here. Even if it were true that “those authors called for solving the problem via free speech and campaigning and voting,” that doesn’t really account for gay people does it? I mean, if gay people are evil, dirty, destroying our nation, etc., and voting isn’t going to make them go away . . . then what? Well, we just found out what.
Words have consequences. I’m a first amendment absolutist, and I think that these people should be allowed to say what they please . . . but I’d like it if they realized that what they’re saying isn’t all fun and games.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Myca, I’ve seen a few nutbags write comments on posts (but never posts themselves) matching those sentiments on Free Republic. They are very few and far between and they are not well received. Such people are a very small minority that I can see.
I agree that those who DO write such things have committed an immoral act and condemn them. What legal liability attaches to that I’m not sure, but I’ll agree there’s a moral one. But there has to be an explicit call to commit a violent act for the moral liability to be there, as far as I’m concerned.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Have you read the David Neiwert stuff on eliminationism Nomen Nescio linked to? The people he talks about (and gives explicit examples and citations for) are not anonymous freepers. They’re prominent media and political figures.
Also, beyond explicit calls for violence, there’s something that really disturbs me in political rhetoric that dehumanizes your opponents. President Bush ran for governor in part on the argument that gay people belonged in jail for having sex, Bill Buckley proposed forcibly tattooing AIDS victims, and more politicians than I can count have spoken out about ‘the gay agenda’ and how ‘gays control everything’.
If we take that and substitute ‘Jewish’ for ‘gay’, what do we have? We have mutterings about Jewish control of society, proposals for forcible tattooing, and criminalization of the religion.
Yeah, yeah, I know that sexual orientation and religion aren’t the same thing. I’m not even arguing that they are. I’m not arguing that ‘OMG WTF BU$H IZ NAZZZZZIIIII!!!!11!!’, I’m just saying that you guys on the right . . . when you wonder why we’re frightened of you, and why we think that the rhetoric is dangerous, this is why. We’re not paranoid, we’re paying attention.
Seriously, Ron. I was really angry when I wrote the original post, but I’m not angry now.
I’m worried.
Even without a specific call for violence, if your enemies are dehumanized enough, and if you convince people that they’re bad enough, then something will happen.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
OMG WTF BU$H IZ NAZZZZZIIIII!!!!11!!
Snort! Guffaw! Love it!
No, I didn’t check that link. But I promise I will. I’m going to be out next week (taking the Venture Crew on a canoe trip) and I’m pushed for time right now to make sure that my job can stand me walking away from it for a week without any fires starting with the customers. I will be completely out of communications on the trip.
So, I’ll check it out when I can.
if your enemies are dehumanized enough, and if you convince people that they’re bad enough, then something will happen.
Hm. How far does that go? I think we can all agree that calling out “kill the liberals” is unacceptable. But can I not then ever condemn behavior as immoral or undesirable or even un-American without being accused of putting them in mortal danger? There ARE things that are immoral. There ARE things that are undesirable. There ARE things that are un-American.
On another thread here there’s condemnation of public officials talking about how more young women in their juristiction are getting raped, and that they are connecting it to increased binge drinking among these women. It is rightly pointed out that responsibility for rapes belongs the rapists, not the drunken women. Regardless of external circumstances the responsibility for anti-social acts belongs to the actors even if they are tempted by accusations of immorality or easy targets.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Well, Ron, I disagree. I believe that when the Nazis launched an organized propaganda campaign to equate Jews with vermin, that they encouraged and created violence against them even before they undertook direct pogroms. They heightened anti-semitism, and the absolutely predictable results occurred.
The same applies here.
As I pointed out in the original post, it’s entirely possible to create a riot without saying, “boy, I sure hope people riot.” It’s entirely possible to create violence without saying, “boy, I sure hope those people get killed.” We know it’s possible because Governor Faubus did it. To claim that engaging in hate rhetoric has no consequences in the outside world is the refuge of a coward. Specifically, a coward who has never had to fear which side of the riot he would end up on.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I think we could explore this thesis better if we stopped pretending violent demagoguery is exclusive to the right.
We speak of Jonah Goldberg but the “Bush is a Fascist” meme is more than popular on the left.
We speak of vandalism, but not a word about PETA and the anti-globalization movement.
Should environmentalist tone it down b/c of the unibomber? Progressives b/c of Bill Ayers? Should we stop using terms like Israeli apartheid b/c it may contribute to Palestinian terrorism? Does Ward Churchil enable Osama Bin laden? Should Edward Said have toned it down b/c of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet (the man who went on a shooting spree at the El Al counter of LAX)?
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
When is the last time you’d say that we saw right-wingers targeted for murder because of their politics?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Also, Manju, there are a lot of things you’re conflating in your comment, and it needs a real unpacking.
1) Sure, the left has had its own brushes with terrorism, mostly in the 60’s and 70’s . . . but that’s more than 30 years ago, and the left’s association with violent radicals is part of what drove much of the country away from them through the 70’s and 80’s.
My position is not that the left has never had an issue here. My position is that the mainstream left has thrown out those who advocate the elimination and dehumanization of their enemies.
2) Don’t conflate dehumanization with criticism. If I say, “I don’t think hate crime legislation is a good idea,” that’s criticism. If I say, “Black people are filthy rats,” that’s dehumanization. There are those who want to pretend that criticism of an idea is the same thing as dehumanization of a people, and it’s not. There are people on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian debate who engage in legitimate criticism, and people on both sides who want to portray their enemies as less human.
3) Osama Bin Laden is on the right. He is a religious fundamentalist who believes in severely circumscribed gender and sexual roles. By any metric that has a lick of sense, he is a right-wing ideologue.
4) Sure. Well, I mean, they should have, and in fact did. Earth First! specifically changed their rhetoric in order to reject all criminal acts.
5) A final difference has something to do with who is saying what and how accepted it is. Every political ideology has crazies, no question, but what mainstream leftist pundits or politicians spout this stuff? Who compares to Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Ann Coulter? Who compares to Jessee Helms? What racial or sexual group did Bill Clinton say belongs in jail?
6) Last, Manju, I would ask if you’ve read David Neiwert’s writing on eliminationism that Nomen Nescio linked to upthread. If you haven’t, you really should. I think of it as required reading for this thread.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I’m all for bipartisanship and mutual understanding (not to be confused with squishy fence-sitting) in most cases, but on this issue I see no valid equivocation. There is no best-selling conservative author who has said we should be able to execute a conservative to intimidate them, making them realize they can be killed too.
If Alas! allowed sig lines, this would now be mine.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“When is the last time you’d say that we saw right-wingers targeted for murder because of their politics?”
Maybe the LAX El Al attack? Wasn’t there a bomb planted in a recruting station in times square. a foiled anarchist plan to bomb a Coast Guard station. a foied prison-gang attempt to attack military and Jewish targets around Los Angeles.
either way, I think the point is moot. the vast majority of terorist activity these days are of the islamist type. its the hate speech that enables that radicalism that we should be most concerned with.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“Sure, the left has had its own brushes with terrorism, mostly in the 60’s and 70’s . . . but that’s more than 30 years ago, and the left’s association with violent radicals is part of what drove much of the country away from them through the 70’s and 80’s.”
I agree its on the wane, but Shining Path, FALN, Naxalites, are still around terrorizing communities and finding apologists on the left, even in academia.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“Don’t conflate dehumanization with criticism”
Ok. But you mentioned Jonah Goldberg. Doesn’t sound like hate speech to me. Sounds like the Bush is a fascist crowd.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Please address my argument in some meaningful way.
These people you mention . . . they are by no means the mainstream left, and I can’t think of a single Democratic politician who wouldn’t repudiate them That is, if they even bothered to give it a moment’s thought, since they’re not even vaguely meaningful to US politics.
I’m looking for mainstream members of the left, here. Publicly acceptable pundits and politicians. As I said up above:
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“Osama Bin Laden is on the right.”
Yes, but we are talking about enablers here. Notice he uses the rhetoric of the anti-globalization movement. He finds common ground with the left in their opposition to American hegemony. in return, they portray him as a product of this hegemony, playing down the hate-speech and anti-semitism that creates a the fertile soil for this right-wing hatred.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Aw, thanks Sylphhead! I’m blushing a little!
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Bullshit, Manju. Clear, out-and-out bullshit.
Which mainstream, publicly accepted left-wing pundits and politicians play down OBL’s hate-speech and anti-semitism?
What I hear from the left is actually much more “Gosh, I sure wish we hadn’t been idiots and ignored him. Gosh I sure wish we’d captured him when we had a chance. Gosh, I sure wish we’d focused on catching him rather than invading Iraq.”
“Gosh, the right-wing President Bush sure doesn’t seem to think that the right-wing Osama bin Laden is much of a problem.”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
If that argument offends you, feel free to insert Michael Savage in its place. Or Dinesh D’souza, author of The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“Who compares to Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Ann Coulter? Who compares to Jessee Helms? What racial or sexual group did Bill Clinton say belongs in jail?”
Daily Kos, Rosie O’donnel, move on.org? didn’t ludicrous just wish for mccain to be paralyzed. wasn’t here some art exhibit wishing for the assassination of GWBush. If I could include the intelligentsia, we have arundhati rai sympathizing with the iraqi insurgency even as they kill Iraqis, or joseph massad over at colombia U. I recall charles rangel having some kind words for fidel castro. Harry belafonte too. the NYtimes is still trying to come to terms with the Ukrainian famine.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“Which mainstream, publicly accepted left-wing pundits and politicians play down OBL’s hate-speech and anti-semitism?”
Well, I’m talking about the tendancy to reduce this hate-phenominam to US foreign policy, and mock the notion that “they hate us b/c we’re free.”
Noam Chomsky fits the bill. The 911-conspiracy crowd certanly approaches the paranoia of the militia movement. MIchael Moore comes to mind.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
“Or Dinesh D’souza, author of The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11″
Well, this is what I’m talking about. Doesn’t D’Souza’s argument strike you as a mirror image of “they hate us b/c of our foreign policy?”
Not that either thesis is w/o truth. But its like saying Tm McVeigh killed b/c he was upset over Ruby Ridge or Waco, legitimate issues.
That’s a superficial truth. If you scratch the surface and notice his love for the turner diaries and associations with white supremacists, you see there is something deeper going on here that goes beyond specific grievances. Its that deeper thing that d’souza and chomsky miss.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Yes, that’s the typical answer.
Please offer specific examples of their words, because this, what you’re repeating? It is a lie.
My prediction is that IF you’re able to find something ‘as bad’ on Daily Kos or moveon, it won’t be anything Markos wrote or some sort of official post, it’ll be a comment left by a commenter. Which . . . yeah, I can mine The Free Republic for hate speech too, but that’s not my point.
A foreign policy that’s bipartisan and has existed for decades? No.
One is saying, “here is this thing that the US has done historically that’s why they hate us.”
The other is saying, “here are these people who we let be part of our society, and that’s why they hate us.”
The response to the first (if true) is, “stop doing what we’ve done historically.”
The response to the second (if true) is, “get rid of those people.”
You need to stop, now, and examine the difference.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
You consider the 9/11 conspiracy crowd a publicly-accepted part of the left?
That’s delusional.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Actually, to return to the Nazi analogy, since it’s fertile ground, the first is like saying “Germany is weak today because of the Treaty of Versailles.”
Hitler said this, and it was at least partially true.
The second is like saying “Germany is weak today because of the Jews.”
Hitler said this too.
There is a difference.
Please, I beg of you, recognize it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Please offer specific examples of their words, because this, what you’re repeating? It is a lie.”
Kos had some violent things to say about mercenaries in iraq, saying they deserved to die or something. Rosie pushed conspiracy theories about 911, which heighten the already exaggerated sense of victimization of those attracted to radical islam.
BTW, what are the specific eliminationist rhetoric that you are talking about in regards to O’reilly and hannidy?
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“You consider the 9/11 conspiracy crowd a publicly-accepted part of the left?’
No, but the militia movement and KKK aren’t a publicly-accepted part of the right are they? We’re taliking about how these nutcases are enabled.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Also, to follow up, have you read the David Neiwert piece referenced earlier?
I ask because when you equate Michael Moore with Ann Coulter, it’s not a general “rabid partisan of a political ideology” I’m asking for, it’s more specific than that.
And, the thing is, there are similar lists of quotes for Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, etc, etc. I’m not saying that there aren’t parts of the left that are crazy . . . but do you think, even for a minute, that you could compile a list of quotes like this for Markos, Alan Colmes, or James Carville?
Manju, there are people who openly say, “We should be killing liberals right now.”
Please, please read the Neiwert stuff.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Bill O’Reilly Quotes:
Where does George Soros have all his money? Do you know? Do you know where George Soros, the big left-wing loon who’s financing all these smear [web]sites, do you know where his money is? Curaçao. Curaçao. They ought to hang this Soros guy.
“Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!”
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Crap, crap, CRAP! My last post contained an egregious error that undercut my entire point, and I didn’t catch it before the editing timeout.
Hopefully, y’all understood what I was trying to say: that there’s to be no hand-holding round the campfire on this one, no singing of kumbayas, and that creatures like Ann Coulter are purely a product of the Right in America for which Michael Moore (say) are no analogue. And that I disagree vehemently with anyone, including other liberals, who imply as such. My typo made it seem like I was saying the exact opposite, though.
Aw, much obliged. Good love all around!
Manju, the phenomenon we’re talking about is very specific. We are talking about a mainstream political persona who advocates or wishes violence upon ideological opponents at home. Sympathizing with angry militants abroad, even where it could be characterized as wrongheaded* is not the same thing.
Of the examples you gave, only “McCain paralysis” remark from Luda fits the bill, and he isn’t a mainstream political persona, nor is treated in the media as such.
*John Walker Lindh, whom the referenced Coulter quote was referring? Yes. Arundhati Roy? No.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Yes what Sylphhead said.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Myca. There’s a difference between D’souza and Chomsky. D’souza is enabling the bigotry of the islamists while chomsky is enabling their victimization.
Now the danger of d’souza is that nutcases may interpret him as eliminationist, and go out and kill homosexuals for example. Fair enough.
But there is also a danger in chomsky. Nutcases may become radicalized, anti-american, anti- democractic or hate capitalism so much they’d pick up arms or help terrorists, like that lefty lawyer who was convicted of aiding her terrorist client.
yes, right wing extremism appeals more to our primitive side, to bigotry, nationalism, ethnocentrism, while left-wing extremism finds it home in the academy, the opiate of the intellectuals, so to speak. what I’m saying is that while racism and bigotry may be more easily identified as evil, its not the only thing that terrorizes communities.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Given that we’re adding the qualifier “mainstream”, I have to wonder if this is a Right wing phenomenon or a media phenomenon. I think it’s a combination of both, though I’m not sure which plays the biggest part.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Myca:
I’ve read Neiwert’s blog. I find his chronology of the militia movement interesting but the connections to mainstream righties a tad tenuous. The quotes you provide are hyperbole and jokes, and I’m not sure they really had much to do with realife acts of terrorism. And he’s hopelessly partisan.
For example, he covers various right wing southern strategies in dept, but the one employed by clinton against obama got no mention until the very end, when he tried to blame it on the VRWC. He’s only interested in racism when it fits his narrative.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
That would indeed by the obvious defense. The obvious counter is that “hyperbole and jokes” is just an escape clause, and that they really mean what they say. Or that they aren’t meaning 100% of what they say, but that there’s a grain of truth to every joke, and that in these people’s cases the “grain” is more a full on silicate rock formation. Or that they legitimately mean it as a joke for some, but as a dog whistle for others. Who really knows? The complete answer lies only in the heads of people like Coulter and Savage, and that is a deep, dark hole that science will never fully explain.
Even accepting the “hyperbole and jokes” handwaving for a second here, the obvious question to ask then is why liberals, who otherwise enjoy political humour very much (by far the majority of political humourists appear to be liberal), do not like these particular kind of “jokes”, whereas a certain breed of conservative can’t get enough of them. Is it something in the water? Or in the ideology? Media or cultural environment?
Adding on to my last post, I think the best explanation for this is that in America, Right wing extremism is tolerated in a way Left wing extremism is not. I could speculate as to why, but I have to get somewhere right now, so toodles for now.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Yeah . . . I mean, to put what Sylphhead said another way … they sure do seem to joke about killing us an awful lot … and now that someone does it, they all put on their best innocent faces and act all surprised.
“Golly, I don’t know how this could have happened! It certainly has nothing to do with me!”
Well, David wrote that series back in 2006. This isn’t a new concern. It wasn’t funny to him then, and it’s not funny to us now.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 1:23 am
From Orson Scott Card, regarding gay marriage in California:
Calling for violent revolution if same-sex couples are allowed to marry isn’t exactly the same thing as eliminationist rhetoric, but it’s in the same ball park, imo.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 5:57 am
“joking” about killing people for their political beliefs is not funny. that mainstream, widely publicized, highly influential pundits on one side of the political aisle thinks it is funny when targeted at their political opponents, and then are not challenged on it for several years running, one can legitimately question whether it’s hyperbole either. hyperbole is supposed to be exceptional, is it not? why does one political wing feel the need for such violent hyperbole, so widely distributed by such respected (by them) commentators, and to keep up that pattern for so long?
or i could put it more crudely, and begin “joking” about feeding right-wing politicians into woodchippers feet first. except that i know for a fact that nobody would be laughing, not even on the left, and the hue and cry out of the GOP might land me in some quite unpleasant places. with reason, i hasten to add. why do all those right-wing pundits not seem to fear any similar outrage? why are they tolerated? should i move the purchase of a good rifle and the acquisition of a concealed-carry permit up higher on my personal list of priorities?
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
“Manju, the phenomenon we’re talking about is very specific. We are talking about a mainstream political persona who advocates or wishes violence upon ideological opponents at home. Sympathizing with angry militants abroad, even where it could be characterized as wrongheaded* is not the same thing.”
Sylphead: Some examples that may fit your criteria:
“If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism”
–Jesse Jackson on the new Republican majority.
“I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease,”
–Julianne Malveaux on Clarence Thomas
“”I hope he’s not long for this world.”
–Nina Totenbeg on General Jerry Boykin
“I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will.”
–Tontenberg on Jesse Helms
“It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich.”
–Janeane Garofalo on th Patriot Act
“Hitler would have killed in talk radio,” Giles declared. “He was edgy, too.”
–Nancy Giles on Rush Limbaugh
The president “is not the orator that Hitler was but comparisons of the Bush administration’s fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line.”
This comment was written by Manju.—Dave Lindorff on Bush
Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Of your quotes, there are only three that wish violence on their political opponents, which is part of what Sylphhead specified:
Let’s figure out whether or not these are mainstream political pundits (which is also part of what Sylphhead specified) because frankly, I don’t recognize the names of either of them.
A little googling reveals that Julianne Malveaux is the President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina, and that quote was from 15 years ago. Hardly a mainstream political pundit.
You deliberately shortened one of the Nina Totenberg quotes so as to make it appear that she was saying something she was not. Immediately following the bit you quote about General Boykin, she said “No, no. I mean, in his job. In his job, in his job, please, in his job.” So yeah. Don’t do that again.
The last Totenberg quote, about Jesse Helms from 13 years ago, I have no problem condemning.
But still. After all that, you’ve got one quote. From 13 years ago. And it’s from someone whose stature isn’t even vaguely comparable to Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter.
Aren’t you even a little embarrassed?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
“You deliberately shortened one of the Nina Totenberg quotes so as to make it appear that she was saying something she was not. Immediately following the bit you quote about General Boykin, she said “No, no. I mean, in his job. In his job, in his job, please, in his job.” So yeah. Don’t do that again.”
I think its Totenberg got caugt and tried to backbeddle after the host asked if she as “putting a hit out on this guy.”
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“A little googling reveals that Julianne Malveaux is the President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina, and that quote was from 15 years ago. Hardly a mainstream political pundit.”
I thoink its fair to say, she has moe gravitas thatn Coutler, though she’s not as popular a talking head.
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Of your quotes, there are only three that wish violence on their political opponents, which is part of what Sylphhead specified”
Ok…I was includeing your Jonah Goldberg criteria. But if we narrow it down, your just left with Coulter and O’Reilly. I give you also Kos:
“Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Some more:
For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, Gingrich should be hanged.
–Richard Cohen (wash post)
Snipers Wanted
–Craig Kilborne (Caption under footage of George W. Bush)
[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
–Alec Baldwin
And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.
–Fl Democratic ad
If President Clinton would pardon me I would whip Starr’s ass right now. I will get a crew from Brooklyn and we will stomp him like, like, we’re Savion Glover. We’ll stomp him like it’s bringing da noise.
–Chris Rock
Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.
–Spike Lee (on charlton heston)
He’s one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps
—James Carville on Ken sarr
There is a sound case to be made for dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami. The move would be applauded heartily by most Americans. Alas, Operation Good Riddance would require the sort of mature political courage sadly lacking in Washington, D.C., these days.
–Alexander Cockburn
bunch of mindless jerks who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
–Duncan Black
O Lord, give Dick Cheney’s Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.
–Tony Hendra
Source:
http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/leftist-hate-speech/
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Duncan who? whoever, he was quoting the HGTTG. context matters.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Duncan Black, aka Atrios. You might have heard of him. #2 liberal blog site, or so.
Sure, context matters. Nothing is more amusing to this old warhorse, though, than to see people (on any side of any issue) to go off about how the other side does this Eeeeeeeeevil Thing! And my side never does! Not even once! And if they did they don’t really count as being on my side! Insert fifty paragraphs of special pleading here!
People suck. There are people who suck, right now, on your side of the argument, doing the most horrible things imaginable. It all counts.
Here’s an easy trick, worth 50 Internet Credibility points AND you get a pony at Christmas, I promise: criticize evil, wherever you see it, and stick to that rule no matter who is acting in an evil fashion. If your side really is all that superior, then you’ll find yourself criticizing relatively small amounts of evil on that side of the fence, and you can find happiness in that ratio. But you’ll find evil on both sides of the fence. Just condemn it wherever you see it, and let the ratios speak for themselves.
(My pony will be named Windstar, and we will be friends 4 ever.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Robert, there are certainly people making these sort of horrid statements on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide. But:
1) The folks making these statements on your side
areinclude many respected broadcasters and professional political pundits, with huge audiences for their political analysis. And they do it every year — it’s not a matter of delving into the archives for one unwise statement delivered over a decade ago.2) The Duncan Black quote is completely unfair. A geeky reference to the Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy is NOT The same as what Michael Savage does.
I agree that “special pleading” can be ridiculous, but dismissing all objections as “special pleading” can also be an excuse to ignore legitimate objections. If I jokingly say “all right, I’ll have your leg then!” — quoting the Black Knight from Monty Python — do you really think that’s the same as me joking about how President Bush should be mobbed and hanged?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
as well as Amp’s objections, i’ll also note that the listed “lefties” — several of which appear to be entertainers, not pundits or politicians — all seem to have been attacking individual people. that’s still objectionable, but there is at least the possibility that the individuals so attacked might have done something to bring on such reprobation.
not a few of the quotes mr. Neiwert highlights, on the other hand, target “liberals” as a group. that’s a very different kettle of fish.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Amp, the OP is based on Orval freakin’ Faubus. Who’s digging into the archive for samples?
There may well be career-based distinctions in who is saying what; I don’t know, and I doubt you know either. I believe the point was made quite well by another commenter, in response to a “but nobody on our side says these things!”, who listed a bunch of perfectly good quotes. It’s entirely natural to be hyperaware of the bad things the Bad Guys say, while blanking on the bad things coming from one’s own side. Neither of us has encyclopedic knowledge.
As for your Python example, I don’t think we can excuse hateful things because of the wittiness of the allusion. I can crack a great eliminationist “joke” and use Serenity to do it; does that make my statement inoffensive? If Michael Savage turns into a sci-fi nerd and starts surrounding his venom with ST:TNG references, is it all good? No, I don’t think so either.
As to Nomen’s point, if true (again, who really knows), then there’s an equally anti-liberal spin you can put on it: “conservatives attack a label without really connecting the label to the humans who inhabit it; liberals actually wish for the death of identifiable individual people”.
Let’s just condemn this kind of harsh rhetoric regardless of source (here, I’ll go first: Ann Coulter is Bad. Michael Savage is Bad.), and not worry how the final tally comes out. My personal guess is it comes out about 50-50, because the raw numbers in the population are pretty close to 50-50, and the source of the behavior is “ecce homo, ecce anus”. Everyone’s got one, and I’ve never noticed that a belief in cutting capital gains taxes, or thinking that the patriarchy is a tool of capitalist exploitation, short-circuits the direct connection from rectum to vocal cords that so many people have.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 8:52 am
False Equivalence
For Jesse Jackson to say that the actions of the administration are racist is totally equivalent to Jesse Helms proudly saluting the camera for ‘keeping down the niggers.’ Why, they’re both named Jesse! It must be the same thing!
An attack on a liberal group that the gunman says outright is because they’re liberal and support gay rights is totally equivalent to an attack on an Israeli airline! After all, all Israelis are on the right, and all supporters of Israel are on the right. It must be the same thing!
Calling the actions of a specific administration fascist is totally the same thing as calling a loose political grouping fascist! Why, it’s just exactly like how it’s the same thing to say that Mike Tyson is a violent brute and that black people are violent brutes. Or like how there’s no difference between saying that David Geffen is wealthy and controls the entertainment industry and saying that Jews are wealthy and control the entertainment industry. There’s no difference at all between individual and group statements. It must be the same thing!
Of course, there is no difference between calling someone a homophobe and calling gay people degenerate and dirty.
There’s no difference between noting that our foreign policy can have certain consequences and blaming 9/11 on “pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians.”
Oh, and also, there’s no difference between President Bush and Ludacris or Chris Rock. Their positions and power are roughly equivalent. Ludacris signs hella laws.
It must be the same thing!
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Well, you’ve certainly convinced me, Myca. I now agree that Jesse Jackson and Jesse Helms are not racist in the same way, that shooting people in a liberal church is not the same thing as attacking an Israeli airline, and that Chris Rock is not the president.
I still, however, think that eliminationist statements and calls to violence are problematic, regardless of the political identity of the speaker and/or target, and I still think that the strong natural tendency is for people to be hyperaware of such statements coming from their enemies, and to gloss over and excuse such statements that come from their friends.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I’m not Robert, but IMO it’s not significantly different. Jokes aren’t always humorous. otherwise we could all just start “joking” about lasers, robots, and aliens who would do our killing or intimidation for us, and isn’t that funny? Not really….
Personally, I agree with Robert about the “call it when you see it” approach, though I disagree with his claim that the result would be 50/50. I think that this particular type of speech is more of a right wing thing. But be that as it may there is a big difference between “leftists don’t do this” (false, IMO) and “leftists do it less” (true, IMO.)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
A man in Nevada threatened Republican officials with a rifle if Bush vetoes the emergency spending bill:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-moonbats-snap-lib-threatens.html
This comment was written by Manju.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Right, exactly.
I don’t believe I ever claimed that this was something that the left does not do. What I believe is that both the right and the left have a lunatic fringe, but that the right embraces and indulges its lunatic fringe in a way that the left does not.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
What are you talking about, Robert? I was agreeing with you and Manju that it’s pretty much the same thing.
Pointing out racism is the same thing as being racist. A comedian saying something mean is exactly the same as the president endorsing a law discriminating against a traditionally oppressed minority. The left and the right do exactly the same stuff.
You’ve convinced me. I don’t think we have any points of contention here.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
We see this kind of thing all the time.
If Obama publishes a budget plan that’s a few million off and McCain publishes one that’s 500 trillion off, the headline the next day will read “Both candidates fail to balance budgets.” Which is true, but also stupid. The press and that people who should know better like to pretend that there is no difference because it reinforces the idea that both parties are essentially the same. People are scared of making an actual judgment.
So when McCain kills and eats a puppy raw on television, the headline the next day will read “Obama also a meat eater.”
This comment was written by Pericles.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Manju, by this point you are just Throwing Gravel -
… for the uninitiated, that means subsuming quality of argument with quantity, often with rapid-fire release of unabashed non-sequiturs that would take a long time to refute individually, and endless links that don’t really pertain to anything that you’re saying, in the hopes that no one actually critically examines them. (Latter, thankfully, doesn’t apply in this case though.) This is done to give the appearance of making an argument - the Gravel Thrower usually has given up hope that they can make an convincing argument on its own merits, and is usually trying to herd neutral onlookers on their own side from reasonably ceding ground to the other…
- because that Chris Rock, Spike Lee, and a man in Nevada are not the same as Coulter, Savage, or O’Reilly, is not a difficult point to grasp. Referring to political policies like the Patriot Act in strong terms is not the same as eliminationist hate speech that attacks entire demographic groups, and your attempt at poisoning the well w/r/t calling a fascist spade a spade in terms of actual Nazi-esque policies was both clumsy and shameless. You are deliberately trying to miss the point because doing so will allow you to pad the length of your posts.
Now, Baldwin and Carville are better examples. I believe Baldwin has a radio show now, so he doesn’t fall under “random celebrity” like Luda.
However, on the other hand…
No. We are also left with:
Glenn Greenwald: “Go hunt [some liberal contributors to NYT whose names escape me] down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous — grab for the golden ring.”
Rush Limbaugh: “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.”
“And some of you might say, “Rush, that’s horrible. Peace activists taken hostage.” Well, here’s why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality. So here we have these peace activists over there. I don’t care if they’re Christian or not.”
Numerous quotes that dovetail closely with eliminationist rhetoric from past dictators: referring to liberals as rats, or cockroaches, in his “nuclear bomb” comment.
Melanie Morgan: ” “I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber.”
“A great deal of good could be done by arresting Bill Keller having him lined up against the wall and shot.”
“We’ve got a bull’s-eye painted on [Nancy Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes.”
Michael Reagan: “Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!”
Dean Esmay: “When I say “treason” I don’t mean it in an insulting or hyperbolic way. I mean in a literal way: we need to find these 21st century Julius Rosenbergs, these modern day reincarnations of Alger Hiss, put them on trial before a jury of their peers, with defense counsel. When they are found guilty, we should then hang them by the neck until the are dead, dead, dead.”
Michelle Malkin has repeatedly used the tactic, innovated by Hutu extremists during the Rwandan genocide, of posting the personal information and addresses of her political opponents on her website. This has been done with an immigration advocacy group in Texas, the first copy of her book Unhinged, and anti-war demonstrators in UC Santa Cruz - though it should be noted in the last case, some liberal blogs regrettably responded in kind.
And if you’re actually going to try and argue that this isn’t a violent tactic, then kindly post your own contact information, legal name, and address. Not here, there’s only a few of us, and we’re all so nice - that’d be an easy bluff. Something more along the lines of the media market for a major political pundit. Start with every major blog in existence and we’ll go from there.
(That took me three minutes to cite as I just followed the Orcinus link. That compilation is woefully incomplete, as it doesn’t even include Michael “Trying Hard To Be Worse Than Coulter” Savage.)
In keeping with the spirit of Ampersand’s point #1 on post 50, I could add the following criterion of having to link to the quoted person’s main page - a quick link would show whether these people are actually influential political figures or not. If they even have a personal web page - no name professors from a liberal arts who said something 15 years ago probably would not. And the websites for Limbaugh and Reagan and Morgan would quickly make the comparison look rightfully absurd. Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin are the face of the conservative movement. Rock, Ludacris, and Cockburn are not the face of the liberal movement. Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin are regularly invited onto political programs to represent and defend their broad ideological camp. Rock, Ludacris, and Cockburn are not. For many, such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly, this is repeated, frequent behaviour - I challenge you to provide a similar hit list for Richard Clarke (who is not a pundit who moves minds and allegiances, but is relevant enough as a political figure that I’m willing to entertain your including him).
But you know, if this could be settled by such rational means, this thread would have ended at half the length it’s at now. You’ll probably spin it into some kind of technicality and claim victory. (”You’re just introducing more hoops to jump through!” Technically true, but I wouldn’t have had to if the parameters of the debate were being followed to begin with - I am merely reinforcing them.) Hosing every last rhetorical gopher hole where the willfully blind can hide is repetitive, boring work, and I’ve already wasted at least half an hour of my precious life doing so on this thread. So I’m going to sign off on this particular tit-for-tat, and move on to what I was alluding to at my earlier post.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Why does there appear to be so much more of this eliminationist rhetoric from the Right? Well, one possible explanation is that authoritarianism is generally more violent than anti-authoritarianism, and the Right is currently (and usually) more authoritarian. But this isn’t always the case, and anti-authoritarianism has its own violent elements as well. You could also argue that religion enables more violent language, but I don’t think that’s it in this case.
Say I were to simplistically divide political allegiance into “Left” and “Right”, and political temperament into two archetypes: “professor” and “street fighter”. Professors are reasonable, educated, and polite, and street fighters are fiery, rabble-rousing, and uncompromising. In modern America, you are allowed to be a Left-wing professor, a Right-wing professor, or a Right-wing street fighter. That’s it. Left wing street fighters are barred, banned, untouchable, persona non gratae, unthinkable, unwelcome, and scary. The “street fighter” mold is more likely to advocate violence, but only one side’s pugilists are allowed time on the podium, so this has the effect that we’re seeing now. The angry, outspoken conservative is charming, rustic, and a straight-shooter, or so we’re told. The angry, outspoken liberal has federal agents going through his file. If you’re liberal, you’re Alan Colmes or you’re on house arrest, as far as the media is concerned. So the Left has its Limbaughs, but the media goes out of its way to ignore them.
Why is this so? Relic of the Cold War maybe? Who knows.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
oh, you mean the Gish Gallop? ok, i know that one.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators