Funny you should come back now, Ray. When I awoke from the hangover of yesterday's post, even I felt it was reactionary, premature, maybe even immature. I was thinking all day about posting something to that effect, but when I read it again, I noticed how short I stopped from drawing any direct link between the right's hate speech and political violence. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I simply extrapolated Krugman's point: that there's a difference between strong rhetoric (even emotionally charged strong rhetoric...even if it's less than researched, ie opinion) and inciting violence. One is common only to the right. One is ubiquitous.
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
No comments:
Post a Comment