So, I post this with a bit of trepidation. For me, the issue is not really who is to blame for this shooting. As I said, that is obvious. But it does seem to me raise some of the issues of public responsibility and hate speech. I have suggested here that conservatives have let their right wing idiots into the mainstream much more than the left has. Ann Coulter routinely says something incredibly offensive about gays, minorities, or liberals, yet always lands on some show.
Many say that the political dialogue is poisoned on both ends, and to a certain degree, I think that is true. Certainly there are many on the left that make me wince when they speak. Hell, Pelosi does sometimes.
But it seems to me that the right advocates or jokes about violence toward the left much more casually than the left does. As the piece notes, I can not recall Olbermann calling for the death of right wingers. He mocks O'Reilly incessantly, and derides many on the right--but I don't recall him ever calling for them to die, or suggesting that he would like to kill them. The closest I can think of was when Bill Maher seemed to cheer an assassination attempt on Cheney, and he took a lot of grief for that.
I know that the left demonizes some conservatives--gun owners, Christian conservatives, militia members, etc. But I don't recall those liberals suggesting (even tongue in cheek) that those conservatives be killed.
Kim has a good list of quotes from the right, and look at worst, how often they have called for the death of liberals for being liberal, or at best, have equated us to those terrorists who are trying to kill Americans:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean HannityOf those, only Savage has been punished to some degree for his hateful approach. Still on the radio, though (and most recently mocking autistic kids).
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage
"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh
"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." — Glenn Beck
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter
"I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O’Reilly
"The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh
"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ‘em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the [House] speaker." — Sean Hannity
I am not suggesting censorship, mind you, though I wouldn't mind a little corporate responsibility. But mostly, I am suggesting that the middle of America start to recognize that this kind of hate speech has consequences.
6 comments:
I agree that some on the right are very casual about making violent jokes and assertions towards the left. I have spoken out against this when I could and have refused to engage in a discussion with someone that engages in that kind of speech.
Those quotes are certainly disturbing and I have zero respect for any of those people, especially Michael Savage (appropriate name). That being said, I am unwilling to draw any kind of connection between the killer and these pundits, even if he had read a few of their books. Does this kind of language contribute towards violence? My gut says no, and I haven't found any evidence that says it does. Pundits and politicians have tried to find some connection between real violence and media violence for years and I have yet to find any conclusive study hat shows a causal link.
Streak, I am not trying to be critical of you, but the HP blog makes some points I think are not true in trying to connect this incident with right-wing speech. I just don't think that is a good road to head down and does little to foster a deeper understanding of what has happened.
In the past, I have said that there is nasty speech on both sides of the aisle. On some level, that is true, but you are correct. In the realm of the media and pundits, the right uses far more violent imagery. The left doesn't get off the hook and can be casual with the 'nuttery' or 'kook' label, but they don't joke about killing the right. This does have to stop and I would certainly participate in a boycott. I was pleased to see that Michael Savage's comments have caused several major sponsors to drop his show.
No, I agree. That is why I posted this "with trepidation." I don't agree with everything it said at all, and think that it came very close to "guilt by association." And I also know that you have been very consistently critical of these people. Please don't take this as a blanket criticism of all conservatives. Like so many areas, I believe this is one where most conservatives find this stuff objectionable, but not enough to write a letter or make a call.
I think we can agree that the violent rhetoric should be shunned. And that is the problem. Sean Hannity has not been shunned, nor has O'Reilly or the odious Glen Beck.
But I agree. The causal connection to the shooter is problematic. He is mentally ill and likely would have used another example to justify shooting another bunch of people.
But people like O'Reilly and Hannity aren't innocent here, either. They throw this kind of language out there and don't care about the level of hatred that they contribute to our political discourse.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable if these were two separate conversations. I understand and almost agree. I am just a little concerned (again, not that any of this mitigates this man's actions) that this kind of radical hate speech constantly on talk radio and Fox news doesn't have some impact on real people.
Hey Streak, have you read this? It's an open letter to Hannity about this incident:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=382#
Streak, you are correct and I know you had reservations about the article. I still believe that conservatism has some good things to offer, but some of the pundits and speakers for the right are not doing anything to encourage intelligent or interesting debate.
Let's be careful with our labels here. What are Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc.? There's principled conservativism, of a number of stripes, and then there's asshole. These are not conservatives, but assholes. Conservatives, like lliberals or anyone else for that matter, have values and political principles related to the role of government, the relationship between the individual and society, etc. The only principle Savage and co. hold dear is sensationalism. Do you think Coulter really believes liberals should be killed? I truly don't - I just think she enjoys the reactions that her extremism brings.
This incident is one in which we are reminded that our words have social consequences. I don't mean that in the Big Brother/Ari Fleischer 'watch what you say'legalistic sense. I mean we bear some responsibility for the impact our words and actions have on others. Did Savage shoot someone? ("Did I urinate on your rug, sir?"). Obviously not. Remember Julius Streicher, editor of Der Sturmer, who was executed because his words and images effectively dehumanized Jewish people, thereby making pogroms socially acceptable? That is the parallel my up-writing-waaay-too-late little brain is trying to draw this morning.
To return to the original distinction, conservative versus asshole, there are some examples of conservative asshole. Jesse Helms comes to mind here, but that that's an example of an asshole who happens to be conservative. Let's not unnecessarily conflate a political philosophy and the personalities of some of its prominent exponents.
Until someone drowns Grover Norquist in the bathtub, let's not have any discussion of "the left does it too," k?
OK, that's enough. Next thing you know, I'll be launching into discourse about countering hegemonic constructs, but it's a new day and that's best left to the wee small hours of the morning.
I agree with just about everything you all have said about (1) the dangers of violent speech, and also your take on (2) the lack of a sufficiently direct connection between violent speech and violence that would call for outright censorship. I also wonder whether violent speech might not only be a symptom of the real sickness of treating groups as scapegoats for our problems.
I can't tell you how often at work I come across nonviolent* speech blaming immigrants for our economic problems, legal or otherwise, when the reality is that they are a net benefit to our economy. (There is certainly a problem of corporations outsourcing jobs overseas, but this isn't in any way related to immigration--it's American corporations taking the benefits derived from the American federal and state governments and using them to do business with foreign entities for their own profit, not ours.) The primary difference I see between the actions of the church shooter and well-meaning people who want to crack down on 65-year-old Honduran gardeners with expired status and bad backs is not in their actions, so much as the degree of desperation in their lives. People who feel they have no hope and no recourse do dangerous, violent things, and vice versa.
So the core problem I see with right-wing hacks on Fox and talk radio (as distinguished from principled conservatives like the ones in my family) isn't their violent speech, though that is a problem; it's the hopelessness and fearmongering they sell, appealing to the worst parts of people for profit, even when there is no overt suggestion of violence.
* Nonviolent isn't really the word I want; it's not physically violent, but it is economically violent in that the suggested remedies are to imprison or deport the breadwinners for impoverished families. Niebuhr calls things like this "indirect violence," which seems appropriate to me.
Post a Comment