I was particularly taken by this next part, given the numerous recent posts here, about the number of false accusation made by the right without regard for the consequences.To put this observation in perspective, let me summarize - and these are only a few; by no means is this an exhaustive list."Rhetoric and Its Consequences: Violence Stirred by Inflammatory Political Discourse Endangers Our Way of Life"We live as we were reminded yesterday in a dangerous, hair-trigger time, where tempers always seem near the boiling point and patience seems a lost trait.
Democracy's arguments have never been pretty, but technology has changed the American dialogue.
Because we can now know of problems instantly, we expect answers immediately. And when we don't get them, we let everyone know in no uncertain terms.
We had the ice-cream bribery voter fraud hoax, then there was the 103 frivolous ballot voter fraud hoax, followed by the disabled voter fraud hoax, followed in the past few days by the TSA harassing returning soldiers hoax, the factcheck.org indictment of the 'job-killing and budget-busting' inaccuracy, the various false claims that earned pants-on-fire ratings for false accusations about government jobs versus private sector jobs, the false statements that earned the lie of the year award for false statements about health care reform, the Glenn Beck lie about the city in Ohio doing just fine without accepting federal assistance that he uses as an example of why no one should need any assistance, oh and the snow plow slowdown in New York City.....this is just a partial list of false claims and accusations made by the right. The right making up false accusations about liberals, democrats and unions is practically a cottage industry.
Schieffer went on to say:
We scream and shout - hurl charges without proof. Those on the other side of the argument become not opponents but enemies.Schieffer continues:
Dangerous, inflammatory words are used with no thought of consequence. All's fair if it makes the point. Worse, some make great profit just fanning the flames. [emphasis mine - DG]
Which wouldn't amount to much if the words reached only the sane and the rational, but the new technology insures a larger audience. Those with sick and twisted minds hear us, too, and are sometimes inflamed by what the rest of us often discard as hollow and silly rhetoric
And so violence becomes part of the argument.Meanwhile the Republicans on Face the Nation and all the other 'Talking Heads' programming are desperately trying to distance themselves from their own inflammatory rhetoric, claiming the crime was not political, that there is no connection between their attempt to inflame and people responding in an angry or violent way.
Schieffer concludes:
We must change the atmosphere in which this happened, and we can begin by remembering that words have consequences.Giffords herself had spoken out against the inflammotry rhetoric, including the metaphors and symbolism used by Sarah Palin:
Like all powerful things, they must be used carefully.
More and more, we seem to have forgotten that.
Meanwhile, in the backpedaling from courting the gun rights crowd with her crosshairs, and her comments about reloading:Giffords: "We need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and ... for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action..."
"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," Palin aide Rebecca Mansour told conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce.Really? I think that is another Tea Party / Republican lie. Not accidental inaccuracy; it's a lie, a deliberate deception, a falsehood. Something they are telling people because they are ashamed, and embarrassed, and it explains why Sarah Palin's image above appears to have been taken down shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords. How can I say that so confidently? Because this is what Sarah Palin tweeted after the 2010 election in November:
"Remember months ago 'bullseye' icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)."Maybe their consciences are bothering them, given Giffords was one of those two whom Palin supported, bullseye-targeted candidates didn't defeat. Maybe they should be conscience-bothered.
But just in case that remorse is slow in coming, although who knows what the reasons are for non-renewal, Palin's reality show was not renewed for another season, it was announced today. Perhaps Ms. Palin's popularity has peaked...........and is on the decline? Her second book, another book she didn't write, didn't fare very well either.
While you keep talking about the map with bullseyes check out this article. http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
ReplyDeletein 2004 the Democrats used the same kind of map and in fact one of the ones on that page was put up last month by the Democratic congressional committee. So just stop with the stupid stuff about the bullseyes. Saying you are targetting someone in an election goes back as long as I remember and probably long before that. Also I don't have the links in front of me now but I have posted links to websites with photos of liberal organizations rallies hanging Bush in effigy, carrying signs calling for him to be executed, and calling him treasonous and a traitor. Yet not one of the commentators yelling to tone down the rhetoric now said a word about toning it down then.
While there is some truth to the fact that the left also does use some militaristic imagery & rhetoric at times, there is a marked difference from that of the right. There is zero encouragement of individual violent action on the left, short of essentially defunct communist or anarchist groups.
ReplyDeleteThis is not true of the right, where the militia movement has become an accepted part. The pro-gun outlook of many of the members of the right encourages analogies that are weapon-oriented. Obviously, defining political situations into weapon analogies is about as close to encouraging violence that isn't outright endorsement.
The left that is in the US does not espouse violent rhetoric in the same way that the right does. It simply does not play to their constituencies the way that it does for the right. Even when the left does use rhetoric, it is often legalistic- such as the desire to bring Bush in on charges for his actions in office.
Also, the rhetoric surrounding Bush was hardly mainstream liberal. I don't think I saw a single mainstream publication or even politician supporting these actions. Trying to equate what the mainstream conservative media does with overzealous liberal protesters is a symptom of dissonance. If we wish to bring the beliefs of protesters into the mix, conservatives win hands down on nastiness, vitriol & implied violence.