On the other hand...

[fpb]

Those conservatives who feel hard done by, who react to any charge of hate speech and violent suggestions with an air or injured innocence, would do well to look at themselves and at those they walk with. Here is a selection of headings that have appeared in the last few days in American Thinker, which is not the worst offender:


•The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence - Michael Filozof
•Mayor Bloomberg: An Abject Failure - Pamela Geller
•Why the Constitution is Better Than Marx - James Lewis
•What Obama Thinks of America - Wendy Wright
•Give Me Liberty or Give Me Health - Andrew Foy, MD
•Saving America - Harvey M. Sheldon
•Psychology and the Shrinking of America - Robin of Berkeley
•Bush Derangement Syndrome vs. the Obama Hate Machine - Trevor Thomas
•The Triumph of Propaganda - Nemo Almen
•Obama's Bucket and Other Social Science Insights into His Presidency - Jay Partin
•Rule of Law in the Age of Obama - Scott Strzelczyk
•The Stealthy Spread of Socialism in the U.S. - K.E. Campbell


I think political debate, when you get to the point of arguing "Why the Constitution is better than Marx.", has hit the buffers. We are being infantilized. Pick a hate target - Karl Marx - then use it to signify the whole range of your opponents, most of whom are no more Marxist than they are Zoroastrian, and finally wave the flag at them - that is the only way by which the ludicrous comparison of apples and oranges of "the Constitution" and "Marx" can be described. Any editor with a brain in their head, whether conservative or not, would have consigned this piece of nonsense to the dustbin without even bothering to read it.

How dominant is this idiocy of "my enemies are as I define them, and words mean what I mean them to say" can be seen in the fact that the average American conservative is, at present, ineradicably convinced of two propositions that manage to be both mutually contradictory and both utterly false: That Karl Marx' system is one and the same with Socialism (not even close; in reality, Marx tried unsuccessfully to take control of a pre-existent and widely diverse movement, and neither he nor his successors managed it); and that nonetheless Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists (which is like saying that foxes must be the same as rabbits, since they murder rabbits). It does not take a great deal of brains to realize that whether or not these propositions are false (and they are both false), they cannot both be true, because whatever Hitler and Mussolini were, they certainly were nothing like Marxists! And yet the mental world of Jonah Godlberg and his likes can tolerate this and many other atrocities. Who but a complete idiot would present such a proposition as "Give me liberty or give me health"? The truth is that conservatives are as bad as Kos Kids; they only talk to each other, they are busy confirming each other's prejudices, and they often react badly to anyone who has any substantive objection.

Comments

[blue-sky-day.livejournal.com]

What about those headings constitutes "hate speech" or "violent suggestions"?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If you gotta ask the question... America must be saved; Socialism is a sneaky disease crawling through it; "in the age of Obama" everything decent is perverted; we of the Right are innocent little lambs who never thought of using violence; etc etc etc. A whole oppressed-innocent-victim attitude that demonizes opponents and smells of closed minds and threats a mile off. Nobody speaks of "saving America" without meaning that violence may be necessary, even if they don't say as much; "the homeland is in danger" is always the call-out cry of armies on the march. This rhetoric is neither better nor worse than that of the left, but if anyone can look at it and still believe the right innocent of violent and dangerous suggestions, they must be wearing ham slices for eyeglasses.

[stahlhelm.livejournal.com]

It's what makes me feel increasingly abandoned by the Right, this aggressive use of self-victimizing "They're coming for us!" tactics. It's a lie and a pathetic, insulting tactic.

[blue-sky-day.livejournal.com]

So, calling a politician a "failure" is hate speech? Calling political rhetoric "propaganda" is hate speech?

You've used harsher language than that in the past.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, I won't try to convince you. All I can say is that AT has been going downhill for a while, and that the regular presence of Pamela Geller is a very bad sign.

[learnmygame.livejournal.com]

Thanks for talking sense!

[stahlhelm.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I qualify it as hate speech or suggesting violence, but it's certainly manipulative and dishonest politics. It's using "They're coming for us" weak, self-victimizing tactics that rely on petty fear and paranoia. It's unbecoming,and dare I say, unmanly behavior, of the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

"...they only talk to each other, they are busy confirming each other's prejudices, and they often react badly to anyone who has any substantive objection."

That's probably 95% of not only Americans who actually voted but the whole of Americans of voting age in general.

I've railed for years that political parties foster that sort of self-isolation. It helps the siege mentality of politics I lament so often. It makes it easier to "stoke the base" when the opposition are more a faceless, amorphous idea than actual people with families, jobs, problems, hopes, and dreams.

When I speak with conservatives, they call me "one of *them*" (i.e.a "damn Democrat"). When I speak with liberals, they call me "one of *them*" (i.e.a "damn Republican"). When deeper into the conversation they find out more about me and actually *discuss* things, they make an exception, invariably telling me something along the lines of "Well, you're different from the rest of them."

I'm starting to rant. I'll stop now.

I just wanted to say "Good post" but got carried away.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Recent developments make me think so much of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language".