Tone Down the Rhetoric?

(Political Exploitation of the Tucson Tragedy)

Every single day, crime claims the lives of people across the nation and world, but when such a mass crime strikes your State, it is a smack of cold reality to the face. I feel grief and sorrow for the loved ones and survivors, and extend condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of Judge Roll and the other deceased victims. I wish a speedy and healthy recovery to Gabrielle Giffords and the other injured victims, and I wish strength of heart and spirit to everyone affected.

Exploitation:

Are there tragedy vultures so callous and opportunistic that they would actively seek to exploit this crime for political profit? In light of the recent barrage of media and pundits already doing so, this question becomes rhetorical. Not only are many politicos resorting to such demagoguery, but for some it is an opportunity they actively seek to exploit. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” were the immortal words of political wisdom professed by the President’s former chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. It was a truly revealing insight into the working mind of a political leader. Not to single out Rahm Emmanuel for his candidness. He is far from alone. Whether due to blunder or arrogance, Rahm just happened to be brutally honest in his revelation. Unfortunately, we witnessed the implementation of this political formula at full throttle and without hesitancy immediately following the Tucson crime.  The political exploitation of this crime began almost before the grieving even started, or the reality of what transpired had time to even sink in.

Tucson Citizen/Daily Star cartoonist David Fitzsimmons in an interview with CNN on the afternoon of the tragedy immediately embarked on an incendiary diatribe attributing the murders to the political “right.” Fitzsimmons stated:

The right in Arizona, and I’m speaking very broadly, has been stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage successfully in this state. … This is an intense gun culture and the politics of the state are far to the right, rabid right. I was amazed when Congresswoman Giffords survived these last elections. It was very close. She had a tea party candidate running against her, yet managed to survive and win a second term

Pima County’s Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in an exhibition of political grandstanding furthered the inflammatory accusations by imputing these horrible crimes to those who dissent from government policy. Is not dissent a healthy part of free society? Of course it is, but the real intent this exploitative grandstanding is to stifle the voices of the alternative political ideology, and manufacture political conformity. Here are Dupnik’s words:

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

Sheriff Dupnik previously referred to Tea Party citizens as “bigots.” Can Sheriff Dupnik not see the vitriol, prejudice, incendiary nature and bigotry of his own statements? At least David Fitzsimmons had the courage and character to acknowledge his error and apologize. Does Sheriff Dupnik have the moral character to do so as well?

The use of this tragedy for political finger pointing is not limited to Tucson. Within the first 24 hours it became widespread nationally.

The New York Times ran and editorial stating:

[I]t is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

The blog site Daily Kos tweeted “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Of course this is the same Daily Kos website that two days before this tragedy posted a blog stating “Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now,” for being too conservative and voting against Nancy Pelosi as minority leader. Daily Kos also ran a picture of a bull’s-eye target for Gabrielle Giffords in 2008 for the primary. Is Daily Kos now responsible for these crimes because of its vitriolic hate speech?

Both the blog site firedoglake and political operative Paul Krugman tried to impugn Sarah Palin as responsible for these murders because of her campaign “targeting” twenty specific districts and using a USA map with target crosshairs on those districts. New York Daily News actually ran an article by Mike Daly with the incredulous title, “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district.” Such vitriol attempting to exploit this tragedy for a political smear campaign is not only irrational, it is repulsive. There were some very clear and direct calls for murder that the media does not even mention. Columnist Jonah  Goldberg, Sarah Palin, and several others called for the outright assignation of Julian Assange, the publisher of whistleblower leaks exposing corruption, fraud, lies, cover-ups, theft, killings and other misdeeds by governments. “Targeting” candidates for defeat however, even with a target symbol, is not a call for assassination. The Democrat Leadership Committee used the very same campaign in 2004 with the words “Targeting Strategy” with a USA map with Targets placed on selected Districts. Link here:  http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 If taken down a copy here: http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/demmap.jpg. The left-wing blog site Daily Kos also ran picture of a bull‘s-eye on Gabrielle Giffords for the 2008 primary election. http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png Do Krugman, Daly and all the rest of the smear mongers actually believe the Democratic Leadership and Daily Kos were promoting murder with their bull’s-eyes and “Targeting Strategy” campaign?

The Crooks and Liars website ran an article simply trying to portray the suspect as “right wing” to somehow smear the “right wing” with guilt by association. It strains belief that anyone would resort to such logically flawed demagoguery. Based on Loughner’s available history and ramblings, it’s much easier to portray him as “left wing” if one were so inclined. This suspect posted many statements and ramblings. On a Facebook posting he professed sexual interest in men. Would that make all homosexuals guilty by association for his crime? Of course it’s ridiculous. Such assertions have no greater logic than the incoherent ramblings posted by the suspect himself.

This is not the first time pundits have impulsively raced to exploit a tragedy for use as a political smear campaign.  When news of the death of the Kentucky Census worker first developed, various pundits immediately tried to blame “right-wing” rhetoric for the supposed murder. That was of course before the facts of the investigation came to light revealing the worker committed suicide.

When a crazed criminal invaded the Discovery Channel headquarters and held people hostage, multiple pundits speculated it was the result of Tea Party rhetoric. That was of course before the facts of the investigation came to light revealing James Jay Lee to be an extreme environmentalist disciple of Al Gore. Does that make Al Gore and all environmentalists guilty for James Jay Lee’s crimes? Of course it doesn’t. Such assertions then as now are absurd.

These last two examples of exploiting human tragedy for use as smear campaigns failed. These repeated attempts to blame what they consider “right wing” rhetoric and ideology for such tragedies, however, indicates a concerted effort and desire by some to exploit any human tragedy available for use as a political smear campaign.

This opportunistic smear campaign is not just limited to politicos and pundits. A review of left leaning blog, news or open commentary sites reveals similar claims of guilt against the perceived right wing. Here is just a tiny sampling of comments:

It’s Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck. THIS IS THEIR FAULT. They have made millions off of their hatefulness towards Democrats and liberals.

They are nothing less than evil.  

As far as I’m concerned, those spreading lies, like Fox/Palin, are just as responsible.

This is not an isolated incident, but is the result of vile provocation of the right wing rabble rousers, Beck, Limbaugh et al

Talk about hatefulness, vitriol, toxic ranting, hate speech and an atmosphere of contempt. The diatribe of these comments is emotionally driven, opportunistic, irrational hate speech. Such irrational guilt assertions and hate mongering are not unusual. It takes little effort to find a plethora of comment postings across the net, although many with much less nice language.

Of course the “rhetoric” blamed is exclusively that of political opponents. The method is to fallaciously associate the criminal’s actions to their political opponents and thereby attach a false stigma to achieve either self-imposed or socially imposed censorship upon their opponents trying to avoid the false stigma. Were it successful, it would constrain alternative political speech, and impose political conformity. Such methods are doomed to failure in this electronic age of open dialogue with immediate response and distribution. Nevertheless, the futility of such duplicitous endeavors does not stop the tragedy vultures from pushing such fallacies.

Double Standard on Toxic Rhetoric:

It is not surprising that that pundits of either side not only tolerate their own rhetoric that can be interpreted as vitriolic, but that they have a remarkable capacity for not even being able to see such rhetoric when it occurs by their own side. Below are selected samples gathered from compilations assembled by Media Research Council, Accuracy in Media and others illustrating the vast amount of vitriolic, violent, hate speech propagated by “left-wing” pundits that goes willfully ignored by the same people who decry even much tamer language on the “right.”

·         The Republican Party needs to be murdered. It needs to — it’s like if you had a nest of rats in your house, or a hornets nest under the eaves at your barn or your house, … This is what America needs right now; they need to have the Republican Party eliminated, totally, completely. It is destructive, it is negative, it is sick. [laughs] A mercy killing is what’s needed here.” — Mike Malloy Show, February 4, 2009

·         Environmentalist ads depicting the execution of anyone not willing to conform to their agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM&feature=related

·         “For the people who give a damn about what I say about the Republican Party being murdered, of course it needs to be murdered. ... The Republican Party needs to be executed. Rush Limbaugh needs to choke to death on his own fat....The Republican Party needs to be beheaded. It needs to be taken out on some dark moonless night in the middle of a corn field and decapitated.” — The Mike Malloy Show, February 18, 2009.

·         Montel Williams, “So, Michele [Bachmann], slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAuR_mBEKdE&feature=player_embedded

·         “I have a good news to report: Glenn Beck appears ever closer to suicide. I’m hoping that he does it on camera. Suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger…” — Mike Malloy Show, August 4, 2009.

·         Harry [Reid], you are ball-less! You won’t do the nuke option for the American people and shove the Republicans into the ditch! Shove those bastards right into the dirthole! This is about power! It’s about winning!” — Ed Schultz on The Ed Schultz Show, July 14, 2010.

·         Now Clarence Thomas has always, kind of, adopted the attitude of the House Negro, so perhaps he’ll do it this time also.  … He just looks at fat Tony Scalia; and if Fat Tony farts, Uncle Clarence farts. If Fat Tony burps, Uncle Clarence burps. — Mike Malloy on The Mike Malloy Show, March 15, 2010.

·         Sampling of signs advocating murder against Bush at “left wing” events, including “kill Bush,” “shoot Bush,” nooses, hangings in effigy, bullet holes on his head, http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653895/posts 

·         Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen: Gingrich should be hanged.

·         Comedian and talk show host Craig Kilborn [Caption under footage of George W. Bush]: Snipers Wanted

·         Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club: And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.

·         Alec Baldwin on Conan O’Brien: [I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.

·         Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn: There is a sound case to be made for dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami. The move would be applauded heartily by most Americans. Alas, Operation Good Riddance would require the sort of mature political courage sadly lacking in Washington, D.C., these days.

·         Columnist, pundit, editor Dan Savage: My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I’ll go to Bauer’s campaign office and cough on everything. Phones and pens. Staplers and staffers. I even hatch a plan to infect the candidate himself; I’ll keep a pen in my mouth until Bauer drops by his offices to rally the troops. And when he does, I’ll approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.

·         "F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." — Statist talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

·         Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. … we’ll be there to watch. — Chris Matthews

·         "If I got her [Condi Rice] a** on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them." — Spike Lee

·         And some violent sounding rhetoric from President Obama:

o   “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Philadelphia, PA fundraising stop June 13, 2008

o   “Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face”, campaign stop on September 18, 2008

o   “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry.” March 30, 2009

o   “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.” Summer, 2009

o   “We’re going to punish our enemies”

Of course the point of these examples is not to foster calls for chilling offensive speech by either the right, left or any other political category. These examples of hate speech are mentioned to illustrate the willful blindness to bigoted, violent, and hateful “left wing” rhetoric by the same pundits who so adamantly decry any perceived vitriolic language by the “right.” The double standard is so grotesquely apparent it is nearly blindingly so by any objective analysis. They are zealous about policing right wing language but turn a blind eye to anything vitriolic by their “own” wing. End the hypocrisy. Lacking any reasonable semblance of consistency, the finger pointing by media pundits at perceived vitriolic “right wing” rhetoric carries zero credibility. We must oppose any attempts to chill open debate by any side, but if the so called “left wing” ignores the extensive use of vitriolic language by its faction, why should they expect anyone pay any heed whatsoever to their whining about right wing rhetoric?

Comparison to Ft. Hood Response:

Less than two years ago Ft. Hood, Texas suffered the horrendous tragedy that left 13 dead and 20 injured. That criminal responsible was a Muslim distraught over U.S. military occupation in the Middle East. When that tragedy occurred, many of the same sources that blame “right wing” rhetoric for the current tragedy cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the motive and against exploiting the Ft. Hood tragedy for political purposes. They did not try to blame protestors or anti-war, anti-occupation, anti-empire rhetoric or Muslim Rhetoric for the acts of the criminal. They did not argue that Nidal Malik Hasan’s actions were driven by such rhetoric. Instead of castigating entire ideologies or beliefs with broad bigoted strokes, they correctly cautioned against quick judgments and emotional knee jerk responses. However, in the Tucson tragedy, the same entities chose to jump to quick judgments and emotional knee jerk responses, and attempted to paint an entire range of political ideologies with broad bigoted strokes.

They have proven they possess the intellectual capacity to apply rational, reasoned response to an emotional tragedy but on the Tucson crime willfully chose instead to exploit the tragedy for political demagoguery.

MSNBC Proffers Political Plan to Exploit Tragedy:

On November 5, 2010 on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Democratic campaign adviser Mark Penn advised that President Obama needs an incident similar to the Oklahoma City Bombing to use as an opportunity to reconnect with the American people. Clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8&feature=player_embedded; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmSFOIBgT0A . Yes, you heard Mark Penn correctly. He coldly, callously outlined a premeditated scheme to exploit a horrendous tragedy for political profiteering purposes. MSNBC wasted no time seizing on Mark Penn’s scheme following the Tucson tragedy. Less than a day after the tragedy struck, MSNBC featured a story drawing parallels between the OKC bombing and the Tucson tragedy. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/09/5800077-political-parallels-between-arizona-shooting-oklahoma-city-bombing. In it, MSNBC notes the similar political status at the time of these tragedies. Both occurred after Democrats suffered heavy Congressional losses and while both Clinton and Obama suffered very low approval ratings. After drawing the parallels, MSNBC notes Clinton was able to boost his approval rating 5 points following the tragedy. MSNBC then explains how the OKC incident gave Clinton an opportunity to exploit the tragedy to “vilify” his political opponents by blaming their “voices of discontent” for the actions of Timothy McVeigh. MSNBC, then quotes an “unnamed veteran Democratic operative” to proffer political advice for Obama and the Democrats “to deftly pin this on the tea partiers just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”  The most informative part of this story is what it reveals to us about MSNBC

Freedom is the Answer:

The answer to these issues however, is never to stifle speech. In a free society there will always be offensive speech. What one finds offensive is not necessarily determined so much by the words or language used, but by how much one agrees or disagrees with the political sentiments of the message. If free speech has any meaning at all, it means protection for speech one finds offensive. After all, the only speech ever in need of protection is speech deemed to be offensive. The way to correct errors in reasoning is not to stifle speech and debate, but to expose fallacies and expand discussion. The wisest course is to follow Voltaire’s sentiment, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Es Tu Spartacus?