A Blow for civility on the left
Charles Blow pushes the civility program and chides the left for blaming the right for the Tucson slayings. His column is fairly hard-hitting, especially considering that his sympathies are clearly with the left. He nevertheless calls its campaign at linkage “a full-fledged witch hunt,” words the left usually reserves for either Joe McCarthy or other people on the right, or—well, the actual witch hunts in Salem:
Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.
“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”
The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting.
The thrust of the rest of Blow’s column is a lot more predictable. His point is that such witch-hunting rhetoric against the right is not a good idea because, although the charges were plausible, they were still bad because the American people won’t buy them if they are not supported by the evidence, and therefore they backfire on those who make them [emphasis mine]:
…[This rhetoric from the left] only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.
[NOTE: In this past column by Blow, he goes on and on about invective from the right, but does not mention that of the left at all. The comic high point of the piece is a quote by Bill Maher which—if you’re familiar with Maher and his own “strong language”—drips with irony: “As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh.”]
Unfortunately, those on the committed left who evidence integrity and intellectual honesty are deeply in the minority.
Nonetheless, I (and most of us here) will gratefully acknowledge integrity and honesty whatever its source. Thank you, Mr. Blow.
. . . although, now that I reflect just a bit, is it evidencing integrity and honesty to acknowledge what is already utterly plain??
. . .
I guess so, given the ideological stakes involved.
I read the article and as many of the comments as I could tolerate. It was like hearing myself, only with the politics reversed: “after all these years of putting up with it I am SICK of the sneers and hatefulness and propaganda,” and so on. They were talking about the right, but it’s been the left that’s been on a neverending nasty since, oh, 1963 or so.
It took me aback. Even made me wonder (for a nanosecond or two) if I am crazy and projecting. Or are they the crazy projecting ones? Of course I believe that they are that very thing, but the depth and breadth–the sheer attention to detail–that pervades their denial is mind-boggling.
Courtesy of The Washington Examiner, [link below] here is more evidence of Democratic Party blindness/hyprocisy/two-facedness on the issue of civility.
Yesterday, Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., published a New York Times op-ed saying “it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.” I helpfully pointed out that the Congressman, who lost his seat this past November, would do well to heed his own advice given what he had said about Florida Governor Rick Scott: “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
Now that his remarks about shooting Scott have gained widespread attention following his op-ed, Kanjorski is on the defensive:
Only fruitcakes would take violent political rhetoric seriously? Well, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? Or does the logic connecting political rhetoric to acts of violence only applicable to Republicans and conservatives?
Fortunately, he is no longer a Congressman. A further irony about his calling Rick Scott to be shot is that while Kanjorski did so because he alleged that Scott was corrupt, Kanjorski also had corruption problems of his own, as his nephew got $9 million of government money for his company, which went bankrupt in spite of the $9 million of federal goodies.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/kanjorski-only-fruitcakes-would-take-my-call-shoot-governor-liter
http://citizensvoice.com/news/kanjorski-we-deserved-to-lose-1.1087877 his nephew got $9 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11Kanjorski.html?_r=1 Kanjorski’s op-ed
In other words, he says there is nothing wrong or unethical with what the left leaning media did, it just is counter productive.
I enjoyed his statement near the end of the article:
“Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it.”
Doesn’t that apply to the entire Leftist agenda?
I think Timothy McVeigh’s mind was poisoned more by the slaughter at Waco, than by strong language.
In fact I believe that is one instance where a fairly strong, cause and effect relationship would hold water.
McVeigh might have eventually gone off the deep end over some other provocation, but we don’t know that.
While I am on that subject; every time I read or hear of the resurrection of Bill Clinton as a national leader, I recall his response when asked about Waco. (sic) …”You need to talk to Janet Reno about that”. Oh yeah, that’s our Bill.
PS
People like Blow shouldn’t be allowed to get away with modifying history to suit their purposes.
Whoops!
The Left has got to live by its own new rules. azcentral.com has a story today about one Eric Fuller, a 63 y.o. feeder at Tucson political margins, who took a bullet from Jared near his knee while dropping down to feign dead. Walked to his car and drove to an ER because he “felt unable to help” the wounded.
At a made-for-TV event today, he took umbrage at the remarks of a pro-gun speaker, pointed his cell camera at him, said “You’re dead.”
He was arrested and will get an involuntary psych eval. A local mental expert was quick to excuse Fuller’s act, with words along the line of “We all know that anger is very common after an event like the Giffords shooting.”
Heh.
I think the JFK killing unhinged a lot of people on the left. I don’t know how else to describe it. I was born after this and developed a healthy skepticism for the political class. There now seems to be a paranoia on the left that is very similar to Arab governments blaming the Jews for everything.
On the plus side, most of my friend’s children seem to be skeptical about the MSM. It is nice to hear young people questioning the supposed “cool truth”, although the John Stewart audience is scary. Maybe the likes of Bill Maher and his generation will fade away as old cranks. (Sorry Bill, you are old, you are the establishment, you are angry and bitter, and most important, you are not funny). I have great hope for the future. It helps if you don’t listen to the elites of our society.
I misspelled Jon Stewart – so shoot me. Please do it figuratively.
Tom:
See this Ace of Spades thread about it.
Survivor Of Arizona Shooting Who Blamed Palin Arrested For Making Death Threat Against Tea Party Spokesman
Comment #51 had me laughing uncontrollably for several minutes.
As was stated so well right here by JJ, I believe, the left feels their error was tactical, not moral.
I also happen to believe McCarthy was right. And that the proof is in the pudding.
The left feels they have the right to break the rules, even ones they themselves made the day before, because they never have anything but the best intentions.
It will be funny to see if Fuller files lawsuits over how he was mistreated. Bonus points if he uses the exact words “but Jared Loughner” in court.
Fuller doesn’t have hate in his heart. Only those he hates do. This is the insane world modern liberals thrive in.
SteveH, that’s exactly the puzzle I have been struggling with all week — they do sincerely believe this to be true even while expressing their hate. That video of the Twitter feeds wishing death on Palin has several striking examples to this effect: “I’m a nonviolent person but I hope Palin gets shot.” well, no – one or the other, but not both, and once you’ve typed the last six words, the only remaining possibility is that the first four were false. But somehow they are blind to this (have you seen the op-eds in today’s NYT?)
Such psychological blindness — the inability to recognize hatred in oneself and the simultaneous projection of it onto the enemy in order to justify hating more and more hatred oneself, and projecting that too so one can hate more and more — must be at the root of many of the great evils of history. This must be how the Holocaust happened, for instance. How terrifying to watch it take root and grow here, where I once stupidly imagined such things could not be.
Oh how garbled. I’m sorry — I’m typing on an unfamiliar keyboard while visiting relatives — should have re-read more carefully before clicking “Submit Comment” . . . .
M
The fact that such comments have and are being made show just how much the left’s attempts to slander the tea party and Sarah Palin have backfired.
Nonetheless, the comments are lacking a remedy for the damages caused by the intentional use of lies and slander and stirring up mob hate.
Damage control. That’s all this is. There is now a real chance the left will suffer some consequences and so they are willing to to cut their own switch.
Blow’s comments also show disingenuity. First, the main truth here, that the event has been an attempt by the left to lie and slander Sarah Palin and the tea party, is smeared over with the “everyone is guilty” theme. The “everyone is guilty” theme is introduced with that dysphemism beloved by left wingers, “witch hunt,” so as to remind everyone where irrational thinking comes from. Further, the left isn’t equally guilty, but the right is more guilty.
This is laudatory! Like Obama’s “memorial” speech, it is self-serving and disingenuous.
These guys don’t even know they can’t be neutral; look at the interview of Megyn Kelly and Sheriff Cupcake. (I call him that to denigrate him.) Note the point at about 5 minutes 20 seconds when Megyn asks Mr. Cupcake, “Why are you putting a political spin on it” Mr. Cupcake answers that there is more than politics going on here and then at about the sixth minute in the clip says, “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country.” (See link below.)
This is cognitive dissonance and it is a breakdown of logic and exists comfortably in the minds of all those who can still vote for Obama.
http://www.breitbart.tv/megyn-kelly-holds-sheriff-dupnik-accountable-for-politicizing-tucson-shooting/
It’s as if the all that was said by the left during the Bush years never happened.
br549: ah, but that wasn’t hateful over-the-top rhetoric. That was reasoned commentary, perfectly justified.
Byron York, in the Washington Examine, has stated a clear reasoning analysis of Obama’s speech. York states Obama’s message is that the political debate has gotten too rough and should be moderated. This message favor Democrats because they have been busy mis-characterizing statements by figures like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and others as potential incitements to violence.
This analysis has clear parallels to Blow’s characterization of the political picture: We are all guilty of political rhetoric.
The resulting genuflection will hardly be balanced.
One thing that has really, really creeped me out is the “appeal” to Obama for order.
Bleech.
Oldflyer, You mentioned Timothy McVeigh; a few months ago I ran into someone who served under him in the Army. I cannot recall specific details but she had only GOOD things to say about him.
As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh.
Such forthright introspection is refreshing.