Osler's Razor

Hatred. Racism. Fueled by a virulent talk show hosts on radio and Fox TV.

It didn't used to be this way.

It doesn't have to be this way now. It'll take decades to overcome the Karl Rove/Ann Counter mentality that has infected certain wings of the Republican Party.

And RRL, let's not hear that tired conservative clap-trap that "everybody is doing it" and the "Democrats are worse."

A host of noted Republicans -- including Bob Dole -- have denounced this trend ... Bush, McCain and the Republican leadership need to join Dole.

This must stop. Reports like this are coming in from across the country.

Bob
 

I love this "it didn't used to be this way" business.

What about the people that have called Bush a fascist for the last 8 years? I have a shirt in my room that has Bush, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler on it, I wouldn't exactly call that high minded discourse.

What about the people that claimed Barry Goldwater wanted to blow up the world? Not in a joking manner, the guy was accused by LBJ and the Democratic establishment of wanting to use nuclear weapons in a first strike and was called crazy.

What about when Adams called Jefferson, "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father"?

You're right. We started it. In the last eight years Republicans invented hateful, mean-spirited, dirty campaigning.

Or, maybe we should just acknowledge that it has been going on FOREVER. I don't think Democrats are worse, I think they're the same.

Delusional is the word that comes to mind when I hear people say that this is a new phenomenon.
 

I don't care who started it. It's wrong to question a candidate's patriotism like this.

And it isn't working.
 

It's desperation. That's the only answer. I am sure people who know McCain personally know that he does not share any of these outlandish beliefs at all.
 

New? No. The early days of American politics were indeed often much worse than anything we see these days, and extreme political attacks such as the "Daisy" ad that RRL cites extended well into the 20th century.

But let's focus on the past twenty-five years or so, shall we? Political "common wisdom" had developed that the most intense negative attacks should be left to surrogates and outside groups, which can get the message out while the candidates themselves remain "above the fray," regretting and disapproving of the muck-slingers. This is a transparent strategy, and modern campaigns hardly deserve praise for their high-mindedness. In fact, recent Democratic campaigns took quite a bit of flack from their supporters for being *too* positive, for not responding effectively to smears and for treating their opponents with kid gloves.

Meanwhile, the Right has been building a large, coordinated, and very effective machine for riling up their base and spreading muck while keeping the campaign's hands relatively clean. The rise of "talking points" is an aspect of this, now widely adopted. Right-wing radio, television pundits, Internet chain letters, and other channels push distortions, lies, vitriol, and hate almost 24/7.

The Left has been relatively disorganized, in comparison. Their presence in radio and in the punditry is laughably weak. Only recently have they been effective in online organizing and outside groups.

Of course, there are always people in any large group who go to extremes. But to stop there and declare the groups "all the same" is dishonest.

These are official campaign activities: At McCain's rallies there are people screaming that Obama is a socialist, both a Muslim and a terrorist (as proven by his “bloodline” and his name), supported by “commie faggots”, and guilty of treason. There is increasing racial invective and, in one case, a call from an audience member for someone to be killed. Those who introduce the rallies routinely emphasize the "Hussein" in Obama's name. Palin speaks of Obama "pallin' around with terrorists," McCain speaks darkly of who Obama "really is," and uses phrases like "co-conspirators" to describe supporters of the bailout.

Show me *anything* in an Obama rally to compare to this. For that matter, find me anything like this in a speech or rally by the Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or Carter campaigns.
 

indeed. quite troubling stuff here. even some high profile republicans, as a previous comment noted, are voicing their displeasure at this turn of events.

and i don't see how this will help him at all with the undecided voter.

----
as an aside, thank you for the mention on the previous post. appreciate it. :)
 

Hate to disappoint RRL, but I teach political science. He can draw on individual anecdotal information all he wants (apparently his standard MO, judging by previous posts), but since the rise of Rush Limbaugh and his buddies, there has been nothing as systemically venomous since the days before modern newspapers. It's even quantifiable in the stuff that spews out of The Washington Times, talk radio, Fox "News," etc. on an hourly basis.

I'm an old Rockefeller Republican, RRL, and you're dead wrong on this one.

We need to admit it and stop it.

Mike M.
 

Well, if you teach political science then I guess you're the ultimate authority. I bow down to your superior knowledge of the subject. I am in awe of your mastery of historical events.

Thanks for the help.
 

Typical smart-ass answer from RRL. And he's an expert in everything!
Tom
 

Republicans
Really
Love...

RRL! Hey! I finally found out the meaning of his name!
 

Tom, RRL ... let's play nice, children.
I know Mike M. ... 30 years of teaching poli si and history ... you do NOT want to play "History Jeopardy" with him, RRL.
There is no excuse what's been happening (and building) in the far-right extremist wing of the Republican Party, fueled by hate-mongers on radio and TV.
This is the kind of rhetoric that turns impressionable true believers into ...
Well, let's not even go there.
RFDIII
P.S. Micah. You're probably right. As usual.
 

I don't think smearing is new. But getting booed at your own rally for saying that Obama is not actually a terrorist? That's the result of not just smearing, but down-right fear-mongering and the silent acceptance of that from the Republican leadership.

When you accuse someone of "pallin' around with terrorists", that no longer refers to the Weathermen or to the Unabomber or to the IRA. Ask someone on the street and you'll get the new description of a terrorist - Muslim, non white, non American.

But, you know? I'm not surprised that there are still some truly dense people out there that believe Obama is Muslim and Iranian/Pakistani/Saudi Arabian. They're the fringe (although it irks me to no end when people who *do* know better call him Osama - you're just perpetuating the problem!). What scares me is that people are calling out "kill him" and "off with his head" too. What? You're really saying that in public? With Secret Service everywhere? Continuous misinformation about Obama aside... when has it ever been alright to threaten someone's life?
 

I'm with RRL. The stuff the Dems said about Reagan was reprehensible, for instance.

The difference is modern communication, especially the internet.

And if you think "The right" is bad, check out some of the stuff that appears on places like "The Daily Kos," or the "Huffington Post."

One of my Facebook Friends is an active Illinois Democrat I knew in Law School. He regularly posts vicious and often outright untrue video blogs about McCain. Awful stuff. (i.e. the Keating Five innuendoes. McCain was a friend of Keating and his entire involvement with the scandal was to go to one meeting where he walked out furious at Keating for getting him involved. The Democratic controlled Ethics Committee implicated McCain because they needed a Republican to investigate along with the 4 clearly compromised Dems).

I don't respond or react -- what's the point? My "friend" is a vicious and ethically challenged political hack. I thought he was kind of a sniveling wimp in law school and now he's proved it.

This doesn't excuse the crowd at the McCain rally. Its scary when the "herd" goes wild.

Stories about Southerners before the Civil War of the anti immigrant parties in the 1800's make this sound familiar
 

Some kid in my class last year believed that Obama was the Antichrist. Seriously.
 

IPLawGuy: You have me curious, now! What "stuff the Dems said about Reagan" do you refer to?

I read The Daily Kos daily, and the Huffington Post from time to time. What sort of "stuff" from these sites do you refer to that could be considered in any way comparable to the 'muslim-terrorist-traitor' noise of the right?

Obviously I know nothing about your friend and his video blogs, apart from the sole example that you give. Senator McCain said of his Keating Five rebuke "I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment." I can only wonder at what your friend could have said about this that would qualify as "vicious" and "awful."
 

People are bad. It's much easier to attack ad hominem than it is to come up with a rational argument. Do I think it's been going on for, oh, forever? Yes. Do I think it's worse now? You bet. Our political class has increased since even the early days of our republic. As our political class increases, the lowest common denominator of our political sophistication plummets.

In other words, when more than just the landed, moneyed gentry are the active political class, the type of sophistication that persuades such people goes out the window. It's deplorable, but for some of the people out there, a personal attack is a more valid form of argument, because they're not basing their votes on anything rational (e..g, people yelling at Obama for being a "turrist"). I don't think it's motivated out of evil, but just stupidity, and the people running these campaigns know how to exploit that.

Never ascribe to malignancy what stupidity is fully capable of explaining.
 

Sigh. My own fault for saying "stuff" without being specific.

Check out today's story about Palin, linking her by implication only to the Alaska Independence Party and some people that don't sound so good. The sourcing looks kind of chancy to me. And the choice of words, like "friends" or this quote about some people Gov. Palin may have associated with: " All three subscribed to a bellicose, "Patriot" movement brand of politics -- far-right libertarianism with a John Birch streak." Who says "John Birch"? Palin? The three people mentioned? No, its the author who used those words.

There are several attempts to link her with the John Birch Society, but I see nothing that says she was a member or even that anyone else was actually a member of the John Birch Society. Yeah, it sounds like there are some pretty extreme people involved in Alaska politics. But they're voters and activists in small towns and rural areas and whether you like them or not, elected officials have to deal with people who may give some of us the creeps.

Or how about this piece from a post by Kos a few days ago:

STARTS HERE: What's interesting, is that the McCain campaign is now on record thinking the same:

Emotions are raw within the campaign, where Mr. McCain’s top advisers have lashed out in frustration at what they said was the news media’s unfair focus on those crowds. "I think there have been quite a few reporters recently who have sort of implied, or made more than implications, that somehow we’re responsible for the occasional nut who shows up and yells something about Barack Obama," Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, Mark Salter, said. "We’re not."

So yeah, anyone thinking Obama would be a dangerous president is a nut. Not my words, but those of the McCain campaign. What a great way to reach across the aisle and find common ground!

ENDS

Why the slap at Salter and the McCain campaign? The McCain campaign is on record as condemning the craziness of the crowds.

As for Reagan, OK, yeah its been a long time, but just pick up any history book about the 70's and 80's and read some of the overheated rhetoric of his opponents, or look at some of Herblock's old cartoons portraying him as a gun toting, nuclear arms hurling madman.
 

I am not sure where it comes from but I have found this disturbing for weeks and weeks. they yell out stuff like they are ready to go harm the guy... I don't get it.
 

iplawguy: I'll do my best to respond, though without a link I'm not sure that I have the correct "today's story about Palin" (and I hope that you're still following this thread!)

You were referring to this story, right? In it, we have a quote from an article based on an interview with Wasilla's former mayor, and another from a Salon.com article that goes in-depth on Chryson and Stoll and their ties to Palin. It indicates that Chryson directed the AIP for a time, and that Stoll was a "John Birch Society activist." You say "There are several attempts to link her with the John Birch Society," but upon searching the article I see only allegations that she "formed an alliance with some of the more radical far-right citizens in Wasilla and vicinity, particularly members of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party who were allied with local John Birch Society activists." In other words, that she was allied to Chryson and Stoll, not that she herself was a Bircher or AIP member. And the evidence presented was of an alliance, not just her "dealing with" local nutjobs.

Long story short, this article links to and summarizes other articles in such a way as to present substantial evidence of close, ongoing ties between Palin and some fairly unsavory folks -- not just of 'association' but of attempts by her "to empower them locally and to enact their agendas both locally and on a state level."

This looks to me like muckraking investigative journalism. It may turn out to be wrong, but so far as I can tell from a bit of searching, this evidence has yet to be debunked or even addressed by Palin or the McCain campaign.

You then quote a rather snide Daily Kos response to Salter's comments on media coverage. The DK post was sarcastic and negative in tone, certainly, but what it boiled down to was "How nice that the McCain campaign agrees with us that these people are nuts." It doesn't accuse McCain or his campaign of anything, doesn't imply anything about his character or any deep subject.

Perhaps we're talking about different things? I care very little whether pundits or commenters from Left or Right use a sneering tone, or are petty or childish about opponents -- it simply makes me more likely to tune them out. What I care about is repetition of demonstrably false accusations (what the Left calls "zombie lies"), dark insinuations of evil deeds or evil character, and appeals to hate, fear, and prejudice. I see these routinely from sources on the Right, and rarely from sources on the Left.
 

Evan,

I'm following! There's plenty of zombie lies out there from the left too.

I tune out the sneering myself. I NEVER listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh for instance. To me, the sneering is just as bad, if not worse. The crazy lies are pretty obvious. The sneering is more like rust. At first its just a patina, but after a while it destroys.

Here's an article from today's Washington Post about the long tradition of nastiness in Presidential politics:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101201966.html
 

Serendipitously, there's just been a very relevant exchange between Rachel Maddow and David Frum that illustrates the kind of false equivalence that I see all too often in these discussions. The clip is only eight minutes long; I highly recommend it.