Once the shock of the Giffords assassination attempt had worn off, the next-most-amazing thing we beheld was the unembarrassed gloating with which the American Left, in its many forms, pointed a pompous and hysterical finger at “the Tea Party” or “the Right” or “talk-show hosts” (although the accusers clearly don’t have Terry Gross in mind). Less than 24 hours after the shooting that nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, we had heard from The New Yorker’s George Packer, the New York Times’s Paul Krugman, and the sheriff of Pima County, all solemnly intoning their belief that Jared Loughner had been in some way led to his crime by a lethal cabal of Rupert Murdoch, Sarah Palin, and the Republican party. Even Patricia Maisch, one of the three citizens who subdued Loughner, could not end her interview with Shepard Smith on Fox News without confidently — and gratuitously — blaming the whole incident on “extreme right-wing reporters.”
Advertisement
This collective j’accuse has now become a story of its own, and largely because, after the passage of another 24 hours, nothing at all had emerged from the mass of data on Jared Loughner that linked the assassin with tea parties or talk shows of any persuasion. Nor did Gabby Giffords turn out to be a particularly likely target if the shooter really were some incoherent brown-shirted dupe of Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, or Rush Limbaugh. (Beck’s only public comment on Giffords had been to praise her criticism of the present immigration mess). It was, instead, the Daily Kos that had to airbrush from its website a complaint that Giffords had let down the Democratic side in Congress and could be considered “dead” to the interests of the Left (metaphorically dead, I presume, but bloody metaphors are forgiven when uttered by the Left).
In effect, the denouncers of “hate” had been roaring ahead entirely on hate fuel of their own. By the time we had passed the 48-hour mark, the absence of any connections between Loughner and any co-dependents on the Right hung the accusers in midair, spinning their wheels like Wile E. Coyote. That, however, only signaled a shift from blaming conservatives to blaming a “climate” of opinion in which homicidal rampages are encouraged to happen spontaneously, like oily rags self-combusting. This “climate” turns out to have only one kind of weather, formed solely by the updraft of, as Packer phrased it, “conservative leaders, activists, and media figures” who “have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents.”
The fundamental problem with this ornate political prurience is that assassination in American history has pretty regularly been the blessèd resort of the Left. Start with Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who murdered the very conservative William McKinley; turn next to Harry Orchard, the union bomber who blew up Idaho governor Frank Steunenberg in 1905; turn again to Lee Harvey Oswald, the Marxist who murdered JFK (but whom Oliver Stone tried mightily to redefine as a clandestine conservative); add in Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who tried to attack Gerald Ford in 1975 on behalf of “clean air, healthy water, and respect for creatures and creation,” and Sara Jane Moore, who fired a .38 revolver at Ford a few weeks after Fromme’s abortive attack because the “government had declared war on the left”; and then top it off with John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan who claimed Lee Harvey Oswald as his role model, and you begin to get some sense of how closely the profile of the gun-toting lunatic assassin suits the Left’s enragés. When the Left talks about violence from the Right, the only name it seems able to come up with is that of Timothy McVeigh.
In some ways, I don't even believe the Left's hypocrisy is actual hypocrisy.
The scary thing is that they very much believe that their cause equals justice equals morality equals the only way things should be.
If you vote or think conservative there must be something wrong with you. You are not merely advocating a different kind of medicine to heal the same patient--you are giving him hemlock, either out of ignorance or out of wickedness.
That moronic Pima County sheriff is exhibit A in this regard. He genuinely believes that there is one party that is trying to do what's right for America, while the other obstinately and criminally stands in the way.
Just like he believes that Sarah Palin is indirectly to blame for a crime that *he* was getting paid to prevent.
The truly sad thing is that Jared Loughner's situation illustrates a too-great(one might say fanatical) belief in the individual human rights of citizens. As long as people are able to "function" in any way in the community, they must be left alone. Even when their right to personal choice for or against treatment could have extreme consequences for other humans who also have rights. Surely we as a society know enough now about severe mental illness to make practical choices on behalf of sufferers like Jared Loughner. Choices that would have prevented this tragedy--and I might say many, many others.
Another way to look at it is this: it was an unfair and egregious violation of Jared Loughner's human rights to keep him from getting the life-saving help that he needed and still needs. This is the very crux of the left-right tension.
When the Right strictly sticks to challenging Obama on his policies with FACTS, not ideology ("socialism" - seriously Obama is so to the right of socialism) and mythology (the "birthers") and so-called asociations (Ayers, Rev Wright) - then I will believe what is written in this column.
Mocking Bush for being dumb was above board because he was well, dumb. Not unlike mocking Clinton for being over-sexed and an adulterer or calling him Bubba for being a bit heavy and eating Big Macs. Again, all facts. The vitriol against Bush was mainly for two things: the 2000 election which was dubiously decided by the courts in the state where his brother was Governor, and invading a sovereign nation (Iraq) on trumped-up phony evidence, which had done NOTHING to the US.
There is one thing in this article I must take issue with:
"If we are living now in a time of unprecedented political “vitriol” — and I believe we are, and very much to the detriment of democracy itself"
and
"It began long, long ago, sometime between Lyndon Johnson’s anti-Goldwater atom-bomb ads and the election of Richard Nixon, and then accelerated with the election of Ronald Reagan"
"Between", in the latter quotation implies that the Anti-Goldwater hysteria was prior to the supposed age of vitriol; in fact, it is an instance of it. Further, anyone who looks at the previous decade (read, say, Witness), can see that it already well-developed.
I believe this is true whichever period we look at. The notion of an era of civil debate is an illusion.
Othere than that, I am in agreement, although it is OF COURSE true that each of us sees, or more accurately, remembers, the faults on the other side. Which is why debate is important, & why it is a misfortune that the likes of Krugman are so assiduous in trying to prevent debate.
"Dead to me" is a Jewish expression. "She's dead to me" is what a religious Jew might have said years ago when his daughter eloped with Ed Episcopalian.
The Daily Pennsylvanian and right wing talk radio aren't equivalent.
And 1905 is not 1968, let alone 2011.
I listen to plenty of right wing talk radio and plenty of MSNBC. There's a categorical difference. The fact that Guelzo draws such weak comparisons is documentary evidence of the false equivalence.
Hmm. I think this is the 4th or 5th article from The National Review talking about how it's really the "Left" that are the assassins in our national history and going back to McKinley to prove it.
Can we at least stay in this century for God's sake. I am 61 years old and I remember plenty of times when our political discourse was a lot more civil than it has been in the last couple of years, and for this, sorry, we have to "blame" Fox News and the leaders of the Tea Party, it's that pure and simple.
OK, let's stipulate that the "right" had nothing to do with the murders in Tucson. What we witnessed in the immediate aftermath is not the calculated scheme of the radical left to discrete the right. Rather, it is pretty much the spontaneous emotional outpouring of many regular ordinary people who have simply had enough of the way the President of the United States and his Party has been treated in the last two years.
The Democrats have no lock on virtue or honesty. But either do you my friends. Instead of wildly trying to deflect blame here, how about a little honest soul searching.
On the weekend leading to the 2000 election, "Saturday Night Live" run a skit in which Bush Sr. contemplated shooting his son because it would be good for the country.
The left not only mocked Bush for "being" dumb, it toyed with the idea of assassinating him from the very start.
You want to compare what the mainstream-left said about Bush with what the mainstream-right has said about Obama, go ahead; the facts are not in your favor.
I listen to a lot of Leftist radio, from Stephanie Miller, to Ed Schultz, to Thom Hartman, and a host of other loonies who consistently dehumanize conservatives and Republicans.
While I often can't listen to conservative talk shows because of their crude treatment of the issues, I'm consistently mortified by the Leftist vitriol that ranges from mockery to contempt to self-righteous hatred.
Clearly the constant finger pointing at high profile conservatives is another attempt at censorship, an important stepping stone to uncontested power.
The truth is, Leftists have created for themselves such a false perception of fear of conservative violence that they have become oblivious to the real violence that their own hateful rhetoric inspires.
So Regina, I guess there were big bad right wingnut bogey men physically restraining Loughner from visiting mental care facilities to get help? Puhleeze.
So his defense is all set...he was whipped into a frenzy by rabid right-wingers and physically restrained from seeking help for his disorder. YAY!
And Mickey, your hypocrisy is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw. Really? So you think all the Bush bashing was "fact" based? Believe me, there are plenty of "fact" based reasons to bash Obama. Not the lease of which is neglecting the economic recovery at the expense of pushing through a maniacally paced "progressive" agenda. I could go on aaaallllll day, my friend.
I agree with you that the left is sometimes blind to its own ability to wound the other side.
But here is a list of violence or attempts at assassination against elected officials in the 20th century:
Teddy Roosevelt 1912 Bull Moose Party (~R~)
Franklin Roosevelt 1933 (D)
Harry Truman 1951? (D)
John F. Kennedy 1963 (D)
Ronald Reagan 1981 (R)
G.W. Bush 1991 (R) - Saddam Hussein
And of course this doesn't include RFK, MLK, George Wallace, all of whom could arguably be called D.
elpuma "The left not only mocked Bush for "being" dumb, it toyed with the idea of assassinating him from the very start.
You want to compare what the mainstream-left said about Bush with what the mainstream-right has said about Obama, go ahead; the facts are not in your favor."
Sadly, the left and the right don't have the same facts anymore. We don't trust the same sources. We don't hear the same stories.
Do you seriously want me to match what you've said above?
If conservatives believe that liberals WANT to kill unborn babies, make America less safe, abolish the second amendment and the constitution, raise taxes on hard working Americans and destroy the American family...how far is it between those beliefs and hate?
If liberals believe that conservatives WANT to create more war on the planet, more government interference in our sex lives, more transfer of national wealth into the pockets of wall street, more Americans dying because they don't have access to health care, more environmental destruction of this planet....how far is it between those beliefs and hate?
I agree with Guelzo that liberals often fail to recognize their own hate. But there's little on the National Review in the past few days that assures me that conservatives have any better sense of self-awareness.
I created two parodies above of what conservatives are and what liberals are. Can we get beyond parodies though and at least try to see one another's good intentions even if we disagree with where those intentions might take us? The future of our Republic depends on us working together for our nation's improvement. How can we work together when instead of seeing one another, we only see invective and cartoons of one another's positions?
Actually, Alan, I was making the opposite point. As a conservative, I believe that individual rights are supreme--BUT when an individual is incapable of protecting his own rights and EVEN in danger of violating the basic rights of others, he should be stopped. Mentally ill people often do not see the extent of their illness.
The tension that exists is that both liberal and conservative positions favor the rights of the individual. The conservative position is that your freedom ends where my nose begins. The liberal position is that your freedom and my freedom overlap.
BrazillianBoy and Mike "existentialist threat" B...WFB Jr. brutalized Gore Vidal for obvious reasons...the POTUS is lucky that WFB Jr. is not with us today - he'd have a field day...Mr Lowry DON"T BACK DOWN...turn it up!!!
Everyone can say what they want and everyone will. Everyone knows their own motives and everyone knows the extent to which their behavior is driven by their motives, secret, public or somewhere in between. Not everyone understands that there are no exemptions to the Law of Reciprocity so some act as if they were "getting away with something" when they deftly deliver a rabbit punch to someone they don't like, disagree with or want to marginalize. They get away with nothing. Therefore, since it is madness to attempt to reason with mad or blind people, it is much better to save one's own sanity, step aside and let the Law of Reciprocity compensate those who think they've got someone buffaloed. They know who they are, but they don't know when the reward they've earned will land in their shopping cart (with free shipping, to be sure). It's best to just pray for them, (keep an eye on them, also), and let the wind they've inherited blow them down. It's another version of Let Go and Let God. It works. Unfailingly.
The activist Left are like junior high kids in their complete lack of self-knowledge and perspective. I've got a bunch of silly examples at www.granitesentry.com. Hoping people will add their own favorites.
It's always good to stop and remind yourself that most of what you are hearing and reading is from people with an inflated sense of their own values and opinions. Nowadays we have the internet, talk radio, and cable tv giving voice to small-minded people in love with their own ideas. Take a deep breath America, and move on.
"we have to "blame" Fox News and the leaders of the Tea Party, it's that pure and simple."
Which side of the coin do you blame when it comes up either heads or tails? Do you blame the tail for the head or do you say it is because of the head that the coin came up heads?
Two sides. Both to blame if either are.
Listen to Maher in the video on the main page and tell me that left does not fuel the fire.
