I agree with President Obama. When it comes to politicizing random violence, he and his supporters have been “far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than” they do. Recognition is the first step toward reconciliation. It’s time to recognize the poisonous pervasiveness of the Blame Righty meme.
For the past two years, Democratic officials, liberal activists, and journalists have jumped to libelous conclusions about individual shooting sprees committed by mentally unstable loners with incoherent delusions all over the ideological map. The White House now pledges to swear off “pointing fingers or assigning blame.” Alas, the Obama administration’s political and media foot soldiers have proved themselves incapable of such restraint.
Advertisement
In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill sergeant and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged man who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski’s homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprit of the spree was the “heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces” (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of TheWashington Monthly online).
That same month, a sick, evil man named Jiverly Voong ambushed an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y. Recently fired from his job, Voong murdered 13 people, critically wounded four others, and then committed suicide. The instant psychologists of the Left knew nothing about the disgruntled man of Vietnamese descent and undetermined political affiliation. But within hours of the shooting, commenters at liberal mega-website Huffington Post had overwhelmingly convicted GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the National Rifle Association, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, and yours truly. Liberal radio host Alan Colmes pointed his finger at the “huge anti-immigrant backlash in this country” — never mind that tens of millions of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens have coped with hardship, overcome racism, and embraced assimilation without going bloody bonkers.
In June 2009, a depraved, elderly anti-Semite named James von Brunn gunned down a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent and lefty Center for American Progress think-tank fellow Matthew Yglesias immediately invoked the Obama administration’s report on right-wing extremism, leading to a wider chorus of condemnations against the Tea Party, talk radio, and the entire GOP. The truth? Von Brunn was an unstable, equal-opportunity hater and 9/11 Truther conspiracy loon who bashed Jews and Christians, George W. Bush and Fox News, and had also threatened the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health-care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic party decried a window-smashing vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. State Democratic-party chairman Pat Waak singled out tea-party activists and blamed “people opposed to health care” for the attack. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for a labor-union-tied political committee and canvassed for a Democratic candidate.
Unfortunately, the next time something like this occurs, the exact same people will jump to the exact same conclusion. The willful ignorance of the left is astounding. Fortunately, the right has started to fight back. Keep up the good work Ms. Malkin.
In William Manchester's hagiographic account of JFKs assassination in The Death of a President one commentator is quoted as saying "And the sad thing is that they (far right) will pin the blame on that boy" i.e Lee Harvey Oswald who happened to be a Fair Play for Cuba Marxist. The author ignored the fact that Oswald tried to kill General Edwin Walker an extreme Birchite. Recently a new Book on Letters to Jackie Kennedy mentioned that Kennedy was killed in Dallas, the Hot Bed of the Radical Right. Oswald's name wasn't even mentioned but it was his finger that squeezed the trigger of the mail order rifle not the editor of the Dallas Morning News.
I just saw the video in which Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg slam Rush Limbaugh.
They just reek of intellectual dishonesty. To pretend that Obama and the White House had absolutely NOTHING to do with what went on in Tuscon is laughable.
The only contributor who has been honest about it all on FOX News is Laura Ingraham.
Also, I would say that both Krauthammer and Goldberg (and other sellouts on FOX like O'Reilly) have missed a very important point: although Obama is ultimately not responsible for the cheering at the "memorial", what they have to realize is that those people are his BASE. And THAT is scary.
I can only imagine the reactions is Sarah Palin had been the speaker. I don't think they would have blamed the President of the university...
Anyway... one of the reasons why I will not renew my subscription to NR.
Paul Revere, I would reconsider your decision not to renew your NR subscription. Jonah and Charles WILL have some ideas about which you and I disagree - and disagree about this I do very much, mind you.
I also love Rush, Derb, Levin, Malkin, Palin, Ingraham, Coulter, Krauthammer, Goldberg, Hannity, McCarthy, VDH, WFB, Kirk, as well as greats of the remote past such as Toqueville and the namesake of my handle.
I watch Fox, and I think that, with few exceptions like pretty-boy Shep Smith, who belongs at CNN, their prime-time political lineup is as good as it gets on TV.
I often disagree with some of the viewpoints of those I trust. For example, Voltaire bought into the general anti-semitism of hìs time. Derb has had some strongly-critical words about Levin, who responded in kind. Palin occasionally cools her ankles in RINO river. Coulter can be unnecessarily strident when delivering her (usually very acute) points.
And so on.
I say, stay on board, post and contribute to the conversation. These guys are intellectual heavyweights, and their mind is open to honest debate.
CharlesB, I am Palin's base too.
Your posts, on the other hand, are just ... well ... base. Sorry, you were wide open for that one.
A little presumptuous. I think Palin is almost as intellectually vacant as you persistently reveal yourself to be around here and I agree with the guy to some extent.
Just saw that video of Krauthammer and Goldberg on FOX, discussing Obama's speech and Rush Limbaugh's reaction.
Krauthammer disingenously sneers that Rush apparently thinks that only the ruling class wants an erudite and ariculate speaker in the White House. I don't think anyone would conclude that in good faith.
Of those who work to popularize conservatism, Rush is a giant, but he's hardly a favorite of Beltway elites. It's off-putting -- but no longer surprising -- that Krauthammer would act in bad faith to defend the elites from a conservative.
-----
About whether to support NR, I support the institution because of the arguments it promotes from its best writers: Steyn, McCarthy, Kurtz, and Goldberg (despite the occasional disagreement).
It is, however, worth noting that "squishes" seem to generate at least as much high-profile content at NRO.
Standing athwart history, yelling stop, can seem so reactionary, after all.
I have to agree with Paul_B. Leftists (so inaptly called, Liberals) will inevitably blame the right if it's too hot, too cold, or too something they don't like.
From the cases Ms. Malkin pointed out, it appears leftists never let a tragedy go to waste. They will always use a tragedy to blame the right, irrespective of the evidence. I think in part that is transference (that's what the leftists would like to do) and I think in part it is a consequence of leftists' absolving individuals of all responsibility for their actions, and if the individual is not responsible, then it must be society, or something about society that caused the poor irresponsible person to pull the trigger. Since, the left considers itself pure of all sin, it must be the rightist who are responsible, and since the right dominates talk-radio, and the left does not dominate Fox, then among other things it must be talk-radio and Fox that caused the tragedies. This then becomes the meta-narrative of the left - if there is a tragedy, it is caused by the right, and in particular, by the vitriol on talk-radio and Fox; and don't confuse leftists by the facts: that there is not a shred of evidence that what they are claiming is correct; it gets in the way of their meta-narrative.
BTW - Thank you Ms. Malkin for all of the instances of vitriol on the left that you showcased on your blog a few days ago.
How come we never hear "the rest of the story"? The part after an incident is investigated that lays out the facts, tells us what the real motivations were behind these acts of violence. Probably because facts are not nearly as interesting as inuendo and inflamatory speculation.
Yet one more example of the hypocracy practiced with abandon by so much of the left. How can these people who claim to want world peace do so much to incite hate for those who disagree with them?
Malkin is correct about the individuals committing horrific crimes are likely deranged lunatics, and that non-conservatives are quick to blame the constant blustery and factless rants from AM radio and pundits such as Beck, Hannity, Levin, Rush, et al.
But doesn't it warrant a closer look at the claims in a much broader sense? For example, what if Michelle Malkin was in the camp where she felt the need to inflict harm on a government worker or Democratic legislator.
If she listened to Glenn Beck somehow weave a thought in a way that merely implies or suggests that "eliminating" the enemy or threat would be justified. And then Malkin spends the rest of her day listening to Rush Limbaugh with a small does of Hannity & Levin. She did this for three or four straight years until she "snaps".
Is it possible that all of the hate-filled, often distorted or manufactured created "facts" have possibly contributed to her actions? Even if it is done subliminally?
Most respected psychiatrists and psychologists would say that it could. Then if that's the case, why not look at the possibility before dismissing it just on partisan politics?
Malkin essentially claims from this article that she has irrefutable proof that in no way were these criminals motivated by commercial liberal haters on AM radio & Fox News.
How does she know? Maybe the Left is really on to something. And if they are, why not calibrate and soften the ugly rhetoric? Perhaps conservatives would broaden their base if they would not looks so darn threatening without watering down the philosophy. It's called thinking.
The far right has general paranoia tendencies anyway. Remove that from the conventional wisdom about the far right and their would be much less of a pounding from the mainstream media.
It would be nice of the NR, and especially Michelle Malkin would chill out a little and quite being so defensive.
To ARegularGuy @ 14:37 - You are assuming that something somebody said had an effect on Loughner. The man appears to be a schizophrenic, and I doubt very much whether what the right said or what the left said had any effect on him. What you are recommending is something akin to telling a cancer patient not to listen to the radio. Whether the patient listens, or does not listen to the radio, the course of the disease is not going to be affected.
BTW - I strongly suggest you visit Ms. Malkin's blog and search for the examples she presented of vitriol on the left. Maybe it's the left that should tone it down.
What many do not consider is that the left will always blame someone else or some other group for any action or event for which they choose not to claim responsibility. They can't help themselves. Denial is a way of life or the left. Just look at how they deny reality every day.
@Jack Both sides are blaming each other, there is no issue with that. You are referring to a specific case that may take years to determine what "caused" or contributed to his behavior. You're right, he could be a nutcase or high on crack, we don't know.
In the broader context of harmful rhetoric (Sarah Palin connection and so forth), that is what I was talking about in my first reply.
Nobody on National Review is willing to admit that it is possible that a maniac could be influenced to act as a result of listening to a constant bombardment of hate talk from AM radio and Fox News. I believe most people think that is possible.I would find that to be more "fair and balanced" (pun intended) if the NR readers were allowed to have a little bit more than the tunnel vision reporting, especially from Malkin.
As for "Maybe it's the left that should tone it down.". I can't argue with that, they have their share of haters too.
So what to do then? How about one side taking the lead on this?
What do you think about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine?
Michelle, you are my hero. Much like your article about how John Boehner should respond/deal/treat Obama and the Democrats that had trashed his name for over a year you again provide concrete evidence to the "they said this" scenario. It's difficult understanding politics, who to vote for and believing "did they really do that." But thanks to you I have elevated my understanding of a very difficult forum. I have seen one thing that irritates the left and that’s facts.
Mr. RegularGuy, thank you for so clearly illustrating my point about hypocracy in your initial post.
Referring to Beck and Rush as "hate radio" is out of line. Is that how you refer to "progressive" media personalities? Why is it so threatening to have other opinions out there? Maybe because those opinions are based on more than smoke and mirrors, and expose the fact that the emperor isn't wearing anything.
Oh, my, oh my. Where to start. First, there are two issues of logic here.
1) You must prove that what is said by Rush and Fox is in fact "hate," since hate is not defined as "speech I don't agree with."
2) You must also prove that this purported hate had in fact influenced this individual.
So far, though, all facts are against you.
To issue a statement, then to state that it must be true because nobody could prove a negative is logically false. If you think I'm cavillating, this is the basis of our "innocent until proven guilty" courtroom rule.
So, then you proceed to ask if the Fairness Doctrine would be a proper response. First, a response to *what* problem?
The problem that while all major newspapers, the Associated Press, TV news, Hollywood and most entertainment sources, the whole state-run education establishment, and much of our bureaucracy are squarely on the Left, there is a Fox News and a Rush Limbaugh to bring an ounce of equal time for the opposite point of view?
Yes, I can see how this would be a National crisis.
Then, please, enlighten us on how this "Fairness doctrine" would be administered. Who would decide what's appropriate or not? People like you, who seem to be trigger-happy with the word "hate" in an attempt to delegitimize points of view that are not yours?
How about this: how about you come back here peddling the Fairness docrtine after you tell your side to tone it down - the side who put out movies on the assassination of Bush, who cracked jokes about Reagan when he got shot, who has several Facebook pages dedicated to ad-hominemn, howling-mad hatred for Sarah Palin, who labels every idea contrary to their orthodoxy as "Hate Speech" and who sent busloads of dutifully whipped-up mob to the private homes of banking CEOs in the wake of a crisis that they had themselves initiated?
I hope this addressed your questions sufficiently.
Yes RegularGuy you are a regular guy of the left. If you dislike the *tone* of the right with their hate speech, I recommend you stay on MSNBC. You will feel much more comfortable listening to their *tone*.
MickyJ I bet you enjoyed all the derogatory remarks from the left when Cheney was ill. I bet you even liked the picture of him with blood dripping fangs.
It is amazing the right is expected to endure the hyperbole of the left and never utter a word in defense. Republicans have been doormats for too long - enough already.
