Which republicans have you seen displaying or provoking violence?
I chose to talk about Republicans provoking violence. I decided that threatening violence would fit within that parameter. Displaying violence was not something I wanted to get into here because I felt it was provocative in a way that I thought was not necessary. It also ventured into philosophical territory that I find interesting but I suspect you might not.
The issue of Performative Utterance does seem to have more and more connection to political affairs these days, however, and especially in the area we are talking about here.
. . .unless you care to share any statements they made advocating violence.
I’m not happy to be asked to produce examples, but of course I will.
The above 2006 AP article References Ann Coulter features quotes in which she suggests that the main question with Bill Clinton was Impeachment or Assassination, says that Timothy McVeigh should blow up The New York Times with the Editors and Reporters inside, and recommends that somebody put poison in the creme bruille of a Liberal Supreme Court Justice.
In the above links, a University of Indiana School of Journalism Study looked at a series of 105 broadcasts by O’Reilly and evaluated them. The study found that on the average defining markers that identify propaganda cropped up slightly more frequently than every seven seconds during the editorial portions of the show. This was even less subtle than the Father Coughlin pro-nazi broadcasts during the 1930s. The comparison is not mine, by the way, but from the study itself. Should you wish any extra information about any of this, the link is there.
Another of the links is to an O’Reilly presentation about Washington Area Lesbian Gangs. O’Reilly presented this in his program as a major Washington and east coast problem and went into considerable fabricated detail about this bogus problem. The effect was to attribute criminal tendencies and a predatory intention to the lesbians and to stir up feelings against them. You will remember that you asked if there was anything that these people were doing that was provoking violence, right? This seems to qualify. The facts were made up out of the whole cloth. O’Reilly was obliged to issue a retraction during a later program. The basic facts are as listed in the linked article. Should you wish more information, please feel free to check it out.
The third link is to an article that was a piece of video that edited comments by Ted Turner to distort them enough to make them either very misleading or false. The video was run on both Hannity and O’Reilly without the comment necessary to frame the video truthfully and realistically. Given the state of the country at the time, it could well have caused folks to behave in a violent fashion. It was fortune that (insofar as we know at this point) it did not. There are many many more examples of this sort of thing easily available to be googled. These are examples of Republicans either advocating violence outright, or helping create a climate in which violence is more likely. I would also suggest that some of the Administration comments about weapons of mass destruction and the alliance of Saddam Hussein and Osama Binladdin were not only untrue but were manufactured by the administration specifically for the purpose of creating the violence that resulted. Despite claims about aluminum tubes, for example, being excluded by the CIA from the State of the Union Message and from prior speeches as being untrue, and the rumors of yellowcake uranium being disproven and excluded for the same reasons, the administration still managed to include them in the state of the union address and use that address as part of the pressure to push the country into war.
Can Democrats be just as wretched?
You bet they can. I remember the first several years of Vietnam very well indeed. Should we have reason to find the violence of the Democrats something that is leading the country into trouble,m say in Afghanistan or in Iraq over the next several years, I was snort and grumble and complain about the wonderfulness of my left wing buddies and will condemn them in the end. Fortunately for me, I don’t feel I have to defend them. If they’ve done anything wrong, condemn away, Mike; I’m on your side there. In the meantime, I think that Local Rebel is right about the way the Republicans are hurting themselves. No, Mike; I do not jest.
And don’t call me Shirley.
I realize there are people who will go as far as possible to paint Republicans in the worst light possible but comments like that, using innuendo and self-constructed conclusions to make a party the party of the violent goes well beyond reason and good taste.
If the Republicans don’t take a realistic look at what they’ve been doing that’s gotten them into this situation, it will only be a massive failure on the part of the Democrats — always possible, heaven knows — or a complete accident that will help change the fortunes of the Republicans around. I want the Republicans to be good opponents. It keeps the Democrats active and alive, and it keeps us from getting bogged down in encrusted and potentially obsolete solutions. It keeps the whole country alive. A good opponent is a treasure, almost as valuable as a great friend. Some might say more so. It is in my interest that Republicans take a good clear look at themselves. It is only in the most narrow possible sense that it’s useful for me for you not to understand what you have done wrong.
It is in my own partisan interest, oddly enough for you to blame me for whatever’ gotten you out of power. Then the solution depends on what you can make me do rather than on what you yourself can do.
Yes, you are right, Bob. All of Trent Lott's life has been a pretense. He's never had morals, never been a good christian, and never accomplished anything decent for the country. How do we know? He told an off-color one-liner at a birthday party. Trash him, by all means. That's the Democratic way.
I don’t think there’s a useful reply I can make here, Mike. I didn’t say it, and I didn’t mean it. I’m sorry if it struck a wrong chord.
No, Bob. The most important point was that a prominent man in the Democratic party, one who has influence over a large segment of the public, called the president the N word. You make it a no biggie because he didn't hold an elected office but you shy away from my question concerning what would have happened to any white person, especially republican, who would have done the same. I don't blame you for ducking it. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, COulter and O'Reilly don't hold elected offices, either, so would you give them the same pass you give Jackson if THEY were to call Obama the N word? Since you jump on them for the comments they do make, I sincerely doubt it..and one "loses" an office, not "looses" it.
Any of those commentators have a much larger audience than Reverend Jackson. They literally have millions hanging on every word they say.
Perhaps you understand the rules of the way racism works or is perceived to work than I do. I know that there are things that folks in in-groups call each other that mean different things depending on how close you are to the center of the group in question, what your status is within that group in particular, what your status is in terms of other groups and so on. I was born in a particular section of one particular Jewish in-group. The rules there were dizzying and not at all systematic, but very rigidly enforced. In watching folks in a rich anglo family operate, or a poor Irish (shanty-irish, they called themselves, but only among themselves) family operate, or a rich irish (actually, I’m not even sure if “lace-curtain’ is so much a description of wealth so much as caste) family, I find that the rules are different but just as confusing.
Why you would expect the rules for how Blacks would want things dealt with would be any less complex than anybody else, why they would be more “fair” for how one Black should treat another than for how a republican commentator should treat a Black is beyond my understanding. I still have trouble figuring out how to deal with myself most of the time.
I do know, in terms of public discourse, what the rules are roughly supposed to be. These got started with the rhetorics designed for use in swaying public opinion in Greece. We have Roberts Rules of Order. We have laws about libel and we have conventions about truth and the methods of reasoning. These we may have some hope of attaining at least some familiarity with, and some flexibility in their use. Failure in doing so is a failure in public competencies, not ethnic conventions.
I really don't mean to sound so testy so early in the morning, Bob, but the lengths you go to, and put into print, to demonize and pigeonhole the Republican party goes well beyond decency.
Mike, you must feel sorely provoked.
There are loads of decent and fair minded democrats. You must ask for yourself how many of them find some merit in what I’ve been saying. I do believe that the Republican party has incited more than its share of hatred and violence in people. You should remember that I also said that a lot of this was due to the alliance of the Republican Party with the Dixiecrats from the late sixties onward. And that a lot of this has a much deeper history going back to some of the compromises that enabled us to form a country in the first place. The southern states entered the union because they negotiated a compromise allowing them to keep slaves. Those slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted in the census, so those states were allowed a disproportionately large representation. They were not penalized for holding slaves in a country that was founded on the principles of liberty.
Today’s Republican party carries much of the Dixiecrat heritage of that. That heritage came down to todays Republicans through the Democrats after the civil war. We are still as a country trying to deal with those issues that were never resolved at the beginning of things. That violence is an American heritage. The Democratic attempt to walk away from it was at best a limited success. We still need to work together to figure the whole thing out.
Those who don’t study history are condemned to have it kick them in the butt and to be beaten by it briskly around the head and shoulders. That’s a paraphrase.
Of course if you want to think it’s secretly entirely your fault, who am I to take the privilege away from you. Though I may think it’s a delusion, and that we all have to work it out together, just like we didn’t do the first time.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven