|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 11:11:54 GMT -5
"And I even agree that the rhetoric is dialed too high and, for that matter, is not even useful."
I agree and I think it comes from both sides. I think one side (and it is a fringe at that) has been a bit over the top, but all in all I don't see a huge difference. The basic issue is the demonizing of the political opposition. We no longer have differences of opinion. One side is good and the other is evil. That is not the way this country is supposed to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Jan 10, 2011 11:16:53 GMT -5
Glenn Reynolds, writing in the WSJ, pretty much captures my view: To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it? This whole meme, while infuriating, is not new. We saw, for example, liberals jump in front of microphones to accuse the Times Square bomber of potentially being an anti-health care reform Tea Party activist. Imagine Bloomberg's disappointment when the bomber turned out to be a radical Islamist. Similarly, when we have an actual radical Islamist engage in textbook Islamic terrorism (the Fort Hood shooting), everyone from the President on down is quick to admonish us not to "jump to conclusions". But when we have an act by an honest to goodness nutcase, the left wing punditocracy can't act fast enough to blame it on the "climate" created by the right. Its disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 10, 2011 11:20:36 GMT -5
"And I even agree that the rhetoric is dialed too high and, for that matter, is not even useful." I agree and I think it comes from both sides. I think one side (and it is a fringe at that) has been a bit over the top, but all in all I don't see a huge difference. The basic issue is the demonizing of the political opposition. We no longer have differences of opinion. One side is good and the other is evil. That is not the way this country is supposed to work. I agree. I'd even go further to say that part of the problem is that both sides .... and this isn't even limited to the "fringe" .... have made great hay by demonizing government itself. We think that government demonization and mistrust is the domain of the anarchist/libertarian right, but it's not. The decade of the 2000s was replete with stories of an untrustworthy government. If you saw all of those stories as merely true, then you probably still don't see both sides demonizing government. But I did, and do. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Jan 10, 2011 11:32:12 GMT -5
We'll probably never really know how much the political rhetoric flying around over the last few years influenced this guy's thinking or to what degree it reinforced his delusional behavior. It is pure conjecture that it played any role at all without knowing something about the guys radio and/or TV viewing habits. But if this tragedy does end up causing the rhetoric to get toned down by those who feel some guilt regardless, then something positive could come of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 10, 2011 11:39:19 GMT -5
"So sorry you guys have to put up with such unenlightened company."
Screw you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Jan 10, 2011 11:41:06 GMT -5
The simple point that I was trying to make pages ago in this thread is that BOTH sides use the rhetoric of violence. The left AND the right. Words DO have consequences, lunatics can't always tell literal from metaphor. "Onward Christian Soldiers," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," our National Anthem... Globally, the ultimate solution has always been to kill those who disagree... we wage war, we've had war waged on us. The top selling video games today depict the everyman blowing his/her rivals into oblivion. Human life is devalued by cultures that sadly have not evolved beyond the need to bash in the brains of their opponents. We go from statements like "every life is sacred" directly to signing declarations of war.
So, we have an unstable individual raised in this miasma of rhetoric... I'm only surprised that this doesn't happen more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Jan 10, 2011 11:46:51 GMT -5
Personally, I find nothing wrong with the current "tone" of political discourse. I don't think there is anything new here. 19th century political ads were as bad or worse as anything we've seen in recent years.
And are we really saying we want to cleans our politics of martial terms? Like "campaign"? Or "battleground state"? Maybe John Kerry should be taken to task for his bit about "reporting for duty"?
What I find amazing is how the likes of Keith Olberman and Paul Krugman get away with suggesting that there is some sort of asymmetry here...that somehow the rhetoric from the right is worse or more extreme than the rhetoric from the left.
And (sorry, Bill, but this is just how I see it...and I think I can back it up) a big part of that is created by the media and their propensity to cry "FOUL" at conservative speech (eg, criticism of Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map) while ignoring similar stuff from the left (I still can't find a single story criticizing the "tone" of the Democrat "bullseye" maps I've posted...and where was all this concern about "tone" when the left was waving around "Bushitler" signs, year after year?). The result is to create a false impression among casual observers that aggressive political speech is one-sided, when in truth all that is one-sided is the coverage.
And lets talk about unions for a moment. Ever look at internal union communications? Ever look at the "get out the vote" materials that some unions send to their rank and file members? I defy you to find more venomous material anywhere, and it is consistently left-leaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 10, 2011 11:49:32 GMT -5
"And I even agree that the rhetoric is dialed too high and, for that matter, is not even useful." I agree and I think it comes from both sides. I think one side (and it is a fringe at that) has been a bit over the top, but all in all I don't see a huge difference. The basic issue is the demonizing of the political opposition. We no longer have differences of opinion. One side is good and the other is evil. That is not the way this country is supposed to work. But isn't that the way it's always worked. The good vs evil has been toned down a bunch since the early days when we had VPs in duels etc. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jan 10, 2011 11:50:39 GMT -5
I'm coming into this late because....
I was in New Orleans. Hah.
I was running the roads and had the radio going. Bad move.
Good post, Omaha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 11:54:00 GMT -5
Jeff, I know it is a minor issue but....
The first map you list, dates back six years and was from the New Democratic Leadership Council. I tried to navigate to that map from their home page and couldn't figure out how. The people behind the DLC include such tip of the tongue opinion movers as:
Al From, Founder and CEO
Edward Gresser, President
I've never heard of them. I certainly have never heard of From or Gresser. I'm not sure you can find that map on their site by any method other than to Google up "Democratic target map".
The story you got these from at least said, "I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office." I would argue that the DLC is a lobbying group and that Palin is a major player in the GOP. Hell, two years ago she was the GOP candidate for Vice-President and by all accounts wants to run for President in two years. People might want to discount her but damn. She has two best selling books and draws millions of web hits. Everything she posts is seen by lots and lots of people. To draw some comparrison between a post on her site and a six year old post on a lobbiest website, it's kind of silly.
The second map was from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, another huge web hit generator that I have never seen and I'm a Democrat.
the issue isn't the map, although you probably won't be seeing that type of map from anyone any time soon, the issue is the audience. The two you listed were internal party groups with an audience of internal party wonks. Palin's was aimed at the general public. The map by itself isn't a big deal and yes her's is getting singled out somewhat unfairly. The issue if the overall heated rhetoric that we just don't need. You add all that angry background noise up and someone who needs a motivation to do something stupid won't have to look far to find one. This isn't Manson hearing things in Beatles' songs. This is a constant drumbeat of anger directed at the other side from both sides. It isn't healthy and defenses that 'the other side did it too' isn't good. Why is the media focusing on Palin instead of those other two maps you located? My guess is they know who Palin is and can find her map without a google search.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 10, 2011 11:56:05 GMT -5
The simple point that I was trying to make pages ago in this thread is that BOTH sides use the rhetoric of violence. The left AND the right. Words DO have consequences, lunatics can't always tell literal from metaphor. "Onward Christian Soldiers," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," our National Anthem... Globally, the ultimate solution has always been to kill those who disagree... we wage war, we've had war waged on us. The top selling video games today depict the everyman blowing his/her rivals into oblivion. Human life is devalued by cultures that sadly have not evolved beyond the need to bash in the brains of their opponents. We go from statements like "every life is sacred" directly to signing declarations of war. So, we have an unstable individual raised in this miasma of rhetoric... I'm only surprised that this doesn't happen more often. I couldn't agree more. But tensions are also being exacebated (imo) by the almost constant harping by the media that the way to deal with our differences is NOT by the use of a two-party system involved in passionate debate (allowing the passion to thus be relieved by debate -- and that passionate debate helping to keep it from escalating to violence outside of government). Instead, we are constantly being told that the two parties shouold be getting along in compromise, bipartisanship, and "working across the aisle" (the thinly veiled implication: the Republicans should stop standing in the way of Democrat rule). And this demand of "bipartisanship" is coming from the left. The disqualification of dissenting opinion by Republicans (by those on the left) is at least as politically inciteful as any metaphorical language either side may use. If you take away our main way of properly dealing with disagreements, something is gonna give. |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Jan 10, 2011 11:56:49 GMT -5
The simple point that I was trying to make pages ago in this thread is that BOTH sides use the rhetoric of violence. The left AND the right. Words DO have consequences, lunatics can't always tell literal from metaphor. "Onward Christian Soldiers," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," our National Anthem... Globally, the ultimate solution has always been to kill those who disagree... we wage war, we've had war waged on us. The top selling video games today depict the everyman blowing his/her rivals into oblivion. Human life is devalued by cultures that sadly have not evolved beyond the need to bash in the brains of their opponents. We go from statements like "every life is sacred" directly to signing declarations of war. So, we have an unstable individual raised in this miasma of rhetoric... I'm only surprised that this doesn't happen more often. I agree just about half way. Your sentence "lunatics can't always tell literal from metaphor" I think is right on the money, but to me its about the lunatic and not the metaphor. As you point out, martial language is as old as politics. I'm sure it pre-dates the US. But I just don't see any practical way to implement a cooling off of rhetoric. Are we going to ban signs like this?  I don't see how you can do that. One thing I think we can do is get the government out of the "war" business unless there is actually a "war". Things like the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs" and the "war on illiteracy" and all the rest. I don't think the government should be declaring figurative wars. It cheapens the word. So, if there's a point of agreement, maybe we can start there? |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 11:57:57 GMT -5
"And I even agree that the rhetoric is dialed too high and, for that matter, is not even useful." I agree and I think it comes from both sides. I think one side (and it is a fringe at that) has been a bit over the top, but all in all I don't see a huge difference. The basic issue is the demonizing of the political opposition. We no longer have differences of opinion. One side is good and the other is evil. That is not the way this country is supposed to work. I agree. I'd even go further to say that part of the problem is that both sides .... and this isn't even limited to the "fringe" .... have made great hay by demonizing government itself. We think that government demonization and mistrust is the domain of the anarchist/libertarian right, but it's not. The decade of the 2000s was replete with stories of an untrustworthy government. If you saw all of those stories as merely true, then you probably still don't see both sides demonizing government. But I did, and do. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 10, 2011 11:59:39 GMT -5
"So sorry you guys have to put up with such unenlightened company." Screw you. You're repeating yourself. Your previous post already said that quite plainly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 12:02:42 GMT -5
Personally, I find nothing wrong with the current "tone" of political discourse. I'm not all that surprised to hear this. |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Jan 10, 2011 12:08:50 GMT -5
Personally, I find nothing wrong with the current "tone" of political discourse. I'm not all that surprised to hear this. Tell me precisely what you are proposing to do about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 12:20:21 GMT -5
"Tell me precisely what you are proposing to do about it."
Ridicule it. Reject it as a method of civil discourse. Discount it. Stop electing people who practice it. Stop watching or listening to commentators who do it. Stop validating it as a viable method of speech by paying attention to it and not dismissing it out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 10, 2011 12:24:45 GMT -5
Throw all the bums out because if you are a D or an R in congress you are practicing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Jan 10, 2011 12:29:01 GMT -5
Pretty much with Doug on that one. Tramp, you just invalidated, among others, President Obama. What you are proposing is a wholesale change in the rhetoric of politics. Not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jan 10, 2011 12:33:59 GMT -5
Well it certainly won't happen as long as there are people who see nothing wrong with it.
|
|
