One of the depressing things about hanging out in journalism for a long time, or simply reading the newspapers for a long time, is that nothing changes. Stories repeat themselves. I have made that point before. So even that is a repetition, and depressing.
McVeigh and his helpers blew up the Oklahoma City building, killing more than 150. President Clinton strongly suggested that Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio were responsible. Do you remember his repulsive address at Michigan State University?
An extremist killed Yitzhak Rabin. People delighted in saying that this was all the fault of Likud, all the fault of conservatives, who had created the “atmosphere.” That was the big buzzword: “atmosphere,” alternatively “environment” or “climate.” In fact, now that I think about it, “climate” was the main word. “Atmosphere” and “environment” were close behind. Conservatives tried to point out that it was okay to criticize the Oslo Accords. It didn’t mean that we were murderers. (It meant that we were wary of murderers.)
When Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans with deadly force, many liberals pinned the blame on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Don’t believe me? Relive those horrible, nutty days in this piece (“All the Uglier: What Katrina whipped up”).
After the Kennedy assassination, John Tower and his family had to evacuate to a safe place. The early word was that right-wingers had killed the president. Tower was associated with Goldwater for President. There were death threats against his family. It transpired, of course, that a left-wing nutjob who had “defected,” briefly, to the Soviet Union was the killer. A liberal was quoted as saying, “Now our grief can be pure.”
When Reagan was shot, there were not many political recriminations, or any. Just a lot of Jodie Foster jokes.
A few months ago, an eco-extremist took hostages at the Discovery Channel building, threatening to kill them and blow up the building. He was shot by the police before he could kill anyone. I don’t recall any comments from the right-wing peanut gallery. There was some snarkiness over the Unabomber. For example, conservatives would put two swatches of text side by side, and say, “Which is the Unabomber’s manifesto and which is Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance?”
If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all. It is simply an individual act, end of story. But if a young psychotic in Arizona kills a lot of people, we’re supposed to examine the state of Sarah Palin’s soul.
I don’t say that it ought to be this way, Lord knows. But it always has been, at least for as long as I can remember. And I fear it always will be. The DCCC can put targets on a map. We cannot. Barack Obama can say, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” We cannot. Those are the rules. It’s just the way it is, and we can gripe about it all we want, but . . .
If a Democratic congressman is threatened, there are countless treatises on the sickness of American conservatism. If Eric Cantor is threatened — there’s no news.
One more thing: Events like the Arizona massacre — if the Boston Massacre can be a massacre (five died), the Arizona shooting qualifies — can have serious political effects. I think the Oklahoma City bombing did. And I remember something from college days — from graduate school, actually. A professor of mine, the late political scientist Nelson Polsby, was asked how the Reagan program got passed in 1981. He lifted his hand and made a shooting motion: the assassination attempt. It garnered sympathy for the president, Polsby was saying. I didn’t like that very much. But there was still a point.
>If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all.
I presume the reference is to the Ft. Hood Massacre. It would appear that most people have forgotten it, do not want to think about it, and forbid themselves to even name it. The problem is not so much the left, they will indeed never change, but that the non-left is so morally intimidated by them.
We cannot think about their control of the narrative, must not dwell on the implications of it for the survival of our country, cannot bring ourselves to even name it for the unspeakable evil that it is.
That wouldn't be safe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSir, I have been on leftie threads yesterday and today.
The vileness of the Left is simply unimaginable.
If we don't put a stop to this, I fear for this Nation, especially those of us on the Right.
Without trying to sound hyperbolic: they are out for blood and they will not be satisfied until they get it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to Arizona Paper the Eastern Valley Sun, Friends reported that He blamed the government for 9-11. I believe Van Jones has blood on his hands. This article discusses his decent into nihilism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have the internet now. We can push back, we can provide evidence. I've spent a couple hours doing it today. Keep the faith, Jay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Ladykrystyna, that's not the least bit hyperbolic.
But tell, who's blood are they literally out for? Has someone called for an arrest or a conviction of someone on the right based on campaign rhetoric that I haven't seen?
Are you really afraid for those of you on the Right? Do you fear mass round ups and imprisonment for your political views? Is this it? Is this the rise of the Radical Socialist Left you've predicted since the election of the Marxist in Chief?
If that's true, then you really should be prepared to arm and defend yourself against the onslaught of.....
Oh, THERE it is. THAT'S how political rhetoric turns into calls of violence. I see it.
(surveyor's mark, right on my comment)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe liberal media and pundits have formed a lynch mob. Conservatives are being hunted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey're also blaming the "new" media, like Fox. Hoyer said things were different when stalwarts like Cronkite and Brinkley were on the job. I guess he forgot the two Kennedy assassinations. So I suppose Old Walter was partly responsible for those. Was that in the Oliver Stone movie?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd Fox News has been as bad as any of them with that idiot Shepard Smith leading the way. Disgusting tabloid that it is. Why can we not have some restraint once in a while?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Those are the rules. It’s just the way it is, and we can gripe about it all we want, but . . ."
No, Jay, we can't continue to accept this idea of "just the way it is." Conservatives have to start to push back when these kinds of repugnant accusations are made by the dishonest members of the left. They need to be the ones ostracized for engaging in such foul tactics. The moment we accept that such actions are just the way they play the game is the moment we wave the white flag.
What's most disgusting to me is that we have to have this conversation while several people are still fighting for their lives and the lives of many families have been shattered. Nonetheless, this sort of accusation has to be treated as the repugnant garbage it is. Conservatives cannot continue to conduct business as usual with media figures and politicians who promote this baseless rhetoric. It's not the right focused on the politics here.
And it's not business as usual. It deserves outrage as a response and the ostracization of those who are sick enough to employ this line of argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis Arizona shooting story feels a tad bit different than all the others you mentioned, Jay. Maybe it's just me.
In another life I was a journalist. You are correct, the mantra we hear now has always been that way. From J-school, to my first job at a podunk afternoon daily, to the largest metros in this country - the back and forth between professor and student, between editor and reporter, between reporter and reporter, between reporter and citizen, in the newsroom, in the press box (geez, I never thought I'd see the sports page go down), in the bathroom, on the street, it doesn't matter the city, it doesn't matter the decade - the same political point of view is taught, the same groups are laughed at, the same groups are coddled.
The difference between now and 25 years ago is people are a lot less guarded about what they say and do. I'm not talking about schlubs like me in this comment section here - I'm talking about people who should know better. Not just media people, but people who have responsibility and power but no clue what that means. I don't even know if they want to know. They seem like they're soulless. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just making an observation that a lot of people to me appear hollow on the inside. There is a real lack of "moral imagination", as Burke called it, in our country right now.
That ain't good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYesterday I heard a crass remark on radio about Sarah Palin having the congresswoman in her crosshair? during last election.Why hate Palin because she represents a grass roots movement. Such vitriol on internet a term used by local sheriff about the shooters motivation.This is not the America I knew and admired and finally migrated to legally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that's a compelling list of examples. Unfortunately, it's only compelling because Jay made the decision to leave out all of the contrary evidence. For instance:
* Shortly after 9/11, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed liberals for helping to bring about the September 11 attacks.
* After the Virginia Tech shootings, Phyllis Schlafly speculated that VT's English department might have had a negative influence on Cho. She acknowledged that she had no idea what courses Cho took, nor had she any idea how he reacted to them, but the speculation is there all the same.
* Andy McCarthy wrote an entire book on the anti-Americanism (and supposed collaboration) of Islam and the Left.
And I haven't even mentioned Ann Coulter.
Jay didn't include these examples, of course, presumably because they'd break up the rhetorical flow of his piece. That's his choice (and the choice of whoever his editor is), but it means that if you want an overview that favors facts over rhetoric, you'll have to find something other than this rather self-pitying piece. It's pretty clear that *both* sides have a certain number of opportunists who will turn tragedies to their own advantage. Their conscience, if they have such, doesn't seem to get in the way, and we can't silence them (nor should we try to). We can at most ignore them, which Jay would have been better advised to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery sad our president has such a dishonest national discussion in light of President Obama being the lead provocateur. Does he not remember his own words?
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
@ Lorraine
1.) Falwell was condemned by almost everyone (including President Bush) so much that he recanted a couple days later and apologized again and again and again for the rest of his life. What he said was ridiculous. There was zero support for him from the right. You do not see that same widespread condemnation from the left after this Az. shooting, or most anything else the left howls about. Instead, you get stuff like (D) members of Congress patting that Pima Co. sheriff on the back for what he said. What (R) members of Congress back then said what Steny Hoyer said the other day: "'I think the sheriff was right." Which (R) member in 2001 said: "I think that pastor is right"?
2.) Agree about Schlafly column.
3.) McCarthy's book wasn't about the anti-Americanism of Islam and the left. It was about the anti-Americanism you can find within Islam and the left. There is a gigantic difference. The last person on earth who demagogues is McCarthy. Have you even read that book? My guess is no, or else you wouldn't have thrown it in there. If you have read it then you've got a serious deficiency in understanding degrees of criticism.
4.) If Ann Coulter were a lefty, she'd host The View by herself and you know it. I know you know it.
5. Both sides have opportunists? Yeah, and the SF Giants and Az. Diamondbacks play baseball in the same division, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow we stop this is simple: We cease rewarding it with public office, media fame, and money and power. The more people simply say "I will not watch, listen to, read, or vote for ANYone who pulls this kind of sick, twisted, unfair, venal cr*p any longer. Period." The quicker it will....not disappear, but scurry away into the ghetto of guttersnipes where it belongs.
If the political battle is for "The middle" and "The undecided" and "The Moderates" then clearly they will be disgusted by this kind of slander. And those who aren't are not the people who might sensibly think about all of the economic, social, security, and other issues we present in our platforms and campaigns, either.
As conservatives, we start from decency. That is not to say that liberals/progressives are indecent--but surely the majority of their spokespeople, such as those who took this tragedy as a cue to slander and lie--are some of the most indecent slime anywhere.
As for those who claimed Jay left out right-wing-extreme comments, take a moment and do your homework. Going way back at least to when WFB exorcised the Birchers and ever since, we of the sincere, honorable, responsible right police our own. When will you of the left start doing that, too?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA fair-minded person cannot connect Loughner to any political party, conservative/Republican or otherwise. But it's still reasonable to ask whether the increasingly polarized, demonizing rhetoric that passes for political discourse, including violent imagery, contributes to an increased danger of this type of tragic event.
Sadly, what I've largely seen is most commentators reacting to the situation as Right vs. Left. Can't we accept that it would be best, and responsible, for ALL commentators, regardless of their political affiliation, being more prudent about the language they use? Isn't it reasonable to ask whether using incendiary language and demonizing those with opposing views, while constitutionally protected and a short-term ratings booster, has potentially severe consequences?
I don't care whether it's from the right, left, or center, quit calling the opposition "Nazi," "Hitler," or "brownshirt." Wanting to reform healthcare does not make someone a socialist. Wanting to limit government does not make someone a fascist. People honestly hold differing beliefs, and we need to show respect for opposing viewpoints. Demonizing opponents makes them seem less than human; throw in language like "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" or "don't retreat, reload," and you have some people so whipped up that they consider violent action a viable alternative.
Was Loughner one of those people? Probably not. But Congresswoman Giffords' office was one of several vandalized after voting for the healthcare bill in March, so those people are clearly out there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting 'Allahu Akbar' as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all. It is simply an individual act, end of story."
Wrong. And you know it. We should, and we do, implicate Islamic extremism. Major Hasan was totally wound up in Islamic extremism.
We only differ about what our response whould be. "Nuke 'em," while satisfying, is even less practical than "Bring 'em on" (we know how useful that was). We have to be a bit more sophisticated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Wrong. And you know it. We should, and we do, implicate Islamic extremism. Major Hasan was totally wound up in Islamic extremism.
We only differ about what our response whould be. "Nuke 'em," while satisfying, is even less practical than "Bring 'em on" (we know how useful that was). We have to be a bit more sophisticated."
I agree with you there. Most liberals that I encounter, even the intelligent ones, will respond to any implication that Obama is less than perfect with "yeah, but Bush did...," expecting me to respond with "oh yeah, well Clinton did...," in a seemingly never ending cycle. They are actually shocked when I say, "yeah, Bush was an unremarkable intellectual sloth, not really capable of running the country competently, you should just realize that I think your guy is worse." I am not trying pick a fight with you, I agree that we need to be quite a bit more sophisticated than the Bush administration. I feel, however, that the Obama administration's approach is, while perhaps more sophisticated, even more damaging in the short and long terms. Repudiating the policies of the Bush era, while continuing to practice them--and at the same time, heaping lavish praise upon Islam, "reaching out" to Iran--is doubly troubling. I might be more convinced that this administration might succeed were it to not try to wage war against Islamic countries while at the same time trying to show how pro-Islamic and enlightened in its attitude towards Islam it is. I'm not defending the Bush regime, I simply think this one is even worse. Granted, Obama did not start either war, and it will be interesting to see if he actually succeeds in winding down either of them, or if this was merely empty campaign rhetoric, or if harsh reality is simply setting in. I feel sorry for anyone who had to follow in Bush's footsteps, but I do think that exchanging one of our most inexperienced presidents for an even more inexperienced president was foolhardy. Whatever his huge number of faults, Clinton did at least demonstrate a capacity to learn quickly and grasp intuitively complex foreign policy issues to make up for his relative lack of experience, i.e. being the governor of a relatively "insignificant" state (I am not trying to insult anyone from Arkansas with that). Though I do not agree with many of the Clinton administrations foreign policy decisions, I do at least respect the fact that Clinton's decisions were made with what appeared to be a grasp of the implications and the results of those decisions. Bush the Elder seemed to have the same grasp. Neither "W" nor Obama seems to possess this trait, and we are significantly less safe because of that lack. Perhaps Obama will change for the better if he's re-elected and doesn't have to worry about his political future any longer. I seriously doubt it, however, and I sincerely hope he's not given the chance to act in an unconstrained manner vis a vis Bush's second term. All that Bush managed to do in his second term was to "correct" what he screwed up in the first place (the "surge" in Iraq) and to waste all of his slim political capital in pushing for privatization of social security. Imagine what Obama could potentially screw up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Nordlinger: great analysis as always.
Your point about the double standards is the most important takeaway from all of this. Yes, it's a terrible shame to see the Left react the way it has done. But it's a reminder for conservatives to be ever-vigilant (er, strike that: ever-cautious?). We don't gain anything by placing crosshairs on districts in political advertisements, so why do it? There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but let's leave it to the Left to be reckless and careless with their words.
We must be above their level, not matching them (ours is a superior position, so why lower ourselves?). I see too much argument from blogs like Red State that we should play by our opposition's rules.
Nonsense.
Let's play by our own rules, because conservatism is as conservatism does. For us, politics is not and should never be our "religion."
That said, I would politely suggest that Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, and that ridiculous sheriff remove themselves from public life and seek other employment. Thank you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have it all wrong. The answer to a double standard, is not to retreat into more caution. That is simply ceding the language and high ground to your opponents. In effect, you are admitting that they are correct, and you must have been wrong. The real solution is to unapologetically attack, with withering prose, vicious satire, and unassailable facts. Force your opponents to back down and apologize, that is how you win. When you back down and apologize, that is how you lose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse