The recent shooting in Arizona has been used as an example of how political rhetoric can incite violence. Those that tend to sway to the left are pointing to this incident as an example of how the language of the right helped this assassin stoke and clarify his hatred. Those in defense of the right side argue that this is the work of a single sick individual, and that this shouldn't be an excuse to quell their right of free expression. The irony is that they're both right.
I've known quite a few crazy people. Not the bizarre ones that put worms up their noses at parties—real, actual diagnosed schizophrenics, manic depressives and whatnot, living in institutions and taking medications. I've observed mentally ill people struggling to achieve a sense of social normalcy though their handicap and noticed one of the ways they do this is by adopting a role model. Because of it's widespread prevalence and general appeal an instrument of mass media is often used for this purpose.
In other words, this shooter in Arizona needed someone to show him the proper social cues to be accepted in our society. It's quite possible that one of the sources for his inspiration was the rhetoric used by the right, and he regarded this assassination as a way of gaining their acceptance.
And I have to admit that, sometime during the Clinton administration, the rhetoric seemed to heat up. The right seemed to coalesce then, and their positions seemed to sway more to the extreme. It was as if they were using a Hegelian dialectic as their model and saw themselves as the antithesis. It's probably effective, but I question the wisdom of using extremist positions to modify public policy.
Part of the irony, though, lies on the left side of the spectrum. The left often uses words in different ways—for example, where the right uses the current 'birther' argument, the left used the 'illegal election' against Bush. When the right assaults Barama for his healthcare reform, the left assaulted Bush 43 as a war criminal. One might not seem as harsh as another, but it's easy to forget that it's really the victim that can describe harassment, not the accused. But that leads to a new question: Who are the victims here?
I suppose it's all of us. The simple fact is that I, just like most Americans, am really a pretty moderate kind of guy. I understand many of these extreme positions, but generally feel that a moderate path--one that incorporates the best elements of both sides—is really the right course. You wouldn't know it by reading a messageboard or watching television, but most of the people I meet actually feel the same way. Because of that I view all the shouting and shoving on the right and left as a desperate effort to get my attention.
My response to that now is going to be to tell people to shut up and get busy. We have a lot of shit to do around here, and it's time to get started. Let's not get fixated on the flavor the answers … let's just solve the problem.
"My response to that now is going to be to tell people to shut up and get busy. We have a lot of shit to do around here, and it's time to get started. Let's not get fixated on the flavor the answers … let's just solve the problem."
The same false equivalency. There is a party that will not let ANY of the important work get done, because politics tells them they can win by getting this president and this country to fail. Threatened filibusters, incendiary arguments, voting as a single unified block, regardless of the merits of any argument. Regardless even of whose idea it was in the first place.
Bush got most of everything he wanted from the demo side of the aisle.
On just this one point, your argument falls apart.
Posted by: Alex McDowell | January 11, 2011 at 09:34 AM
Felicito, erais visitados simplemente por la idea brillante 330)
Posted by: Victor | January 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM