Tuesday, June 02, 2009
William Ayres and Rush Limbaugh
One of the legitimate criticisms of Barack Obama during the election was that he did not show good discernment in accepting the support of William Ayres, a formerly violent left-wing radical who remained ambivalent about the use of violence in opposing the government.
Ayres was a part of the Weather Underground, which used bombs to try to accomplish their goals. The members of that group, like others, built their political ideals on the words of overheated commentators who hated their opponents. What these commentators taught was that those who disagreed with you about politics were your enemies, and enemies of the nation. People like Ayres repeated and acted on that perversion of political discourse.
Rush Limbaugh and his ilk did not urge anyone to shoot an abortion doctor in church (in fact, Rush pretty much ignores religion). They did, however, create a climate on the right wing where political opponents are consistently described as enemies of the nation and people to be hated. To do this, on the right or left, is not the same as actually becoming a violent terrorist. Being a hate mongerer should not be made illegal, but it is still (like many other things which are not illegal) wrong, dangerous, and irresponsible.
Ayres was a part of the Weather Underground, which used bombs to try to accomplish their goals. The members of that group, like others, built their political ideals on the words of overheated commentators who hated their opponents. What these commentators taught was that those who disagreed with you about politics were your enemies, and enemies of the nation. People like Ayres repeated and acted on that perversion of political discourse.
Rush Limbaugh and his ilk did not urge anyone to shoot an abortion doctor in church (in fact, Rush pretty much ignores religion). They did, however, create a climate on the right wing where political opponents are consistently described as enemies of the nation and people to be hated. To do this, on the right or left, is not the same as actually becoming a violent terrorist. Being a hate mongerer should not be made illegal, but it is still (like many other things which are not illegal) wrong, dangerous, and irresponsible.
Comments:
<< Home
I dunno. Bill O. was often very specific in his rhetoric about Tiller. He once said that if the State of Kansas didn't stop him (what? Antigovernment goons requesting state intervention?) then the blood was on citizens' hands. A lot of the rabble rousing took the tenor of having to defend the defenseless.
But apart from that, many of these now claiming no guilt by association or rhetoric accuse groups like the ACLU or the librul media of killing American soldiers or civilians with their rhetoric, which I find about equally as valid. It's be better if we just judged this by normal incitement standards, rather than self-righteous posturing.
But apart from that, many of these now claiming no guilt by association or rhetoric accuse groups like the ACLU or the librul media of killing American soldiers or civilians with their rhetoric, which I find about equally as valid. It's be better if we just judged this by normal incitement standards, rather than self-righteous posturing.
Rush Limbaugh: the oil soaked rags on the dumpster fire that is the contemporary Republican Party.
# posted by 
: 11:48 AM
: 11:48 AM
I have to agree with Mark. Fanning the flames of hate with unceasing (and often erroneous) information and bile encourages people like this killer.
Bob
Bob
# posted by : 12:21 PM
: 12:21 PM
I agree in at least one sense. I think the level of political discourse amongst certain people on both sides is very poor. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Jeneane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann...these people are basically paid to say outlandish things about the other side in often irresponsible ways. This is why I try to listen to none of them.
However, I would never hold Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, or Jerry Rubin responsible for the crimes and terrorist acts commited by the Weather Undergroud and Bill Ayres. And I would never hold Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly responsible for the actions of the criminal that killed the doctor. Just as I would never hold Olbermann responsible for someone attempting to kill President Bush who then said, "well, I heard on MSNBC that he was a fascist, and we can all agree that NAZIs are bad, right? so I was just doing my duty."
The biggest problem I have with the attempt to make this about O'Reilly is that it almost seems like an excuse for the actions of the individual that did the shooting. We have to be responsible adults in a society that can listen to arguments from all sides and then make reasoned choices about how to interact with each other based on those arguments, and not shoot at each other because we disagree. And when someone does shoot at someone because they disagree, it has to be about the person pulling the trigger and not the person making the arguments.
However, I would never hold Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, or Jerry Rubin responsible for the crimes and terrorist acts commited by the Weather Undergroud and Bill Ayres. And I would never hold Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly responsible for the actions of the criminal that killed the doctor. Just as I would never hold Olbermann responsible for someone attempting to kill President Bush who then said, "well, I heard on MSNBC that he was a fascist, and we can all agree that NAZIs are bad, right? so I was just doing my duty."
The biggest problem I have with the attempt to make this about O'Reilly is that it almost seems like an excuse for the actions of the individual that did the shooting. We have to be responsible adults in a society that can listen to arguments from all sides and then make reasoned choices about how to interact with each other based on those arguments, and not shoot at each other because we disagree. And when someone does shoot at someone because they disagree, it has to be about the person pulling the trigger and not the person making the arguments.
# posted by : 12:42 PM
: 12:42 PM
I think we agree, RRL-- I don't think that the hate talkers, left or right, are responsible for the hate actors. I do think they encourage the hate actors, though, whether Tim McVeigh or William Ayres, by discussing politics in a way that demonizes the other side, a step which makes violence seem rational.
Respectfully, I think it may be contradictory to say that hate talkers are not responsible, but they do encourage. It strikes me as having it both ways—drawing a loose association (when the evidence of that is thin) without going so far as to blame. And what defines “hate”? Haven’t demonizing politics and political speech been a problem since the Constitutional Convention (we had a sitting vice president killed in a duel)? It strikes me as the inevitable price we pay for a first amendment.
As to the right-wing “climate” of hatred, on Monday there was a shooting at a U.S. Army recruiting station where a recruiter was killed. Is there a left-wing anti-military climate of hate? We’ve heard about war for oil, interrogators getting their jollies by torturing, the military not caring about civilian deaths, the previous administration being a fascist military dictatorship, and on and on. For every Rush Limbaugh (which I’m not sure why we’re singling him out, as abortion is quite low on his priority list) embraced by Republican politicians, there is a Michael Moore being seated next to President Carter at the Democratic National Convention. For every Donald Rumsfeld saying legitimate war criticism was aiding the enemy, there is a President Clinton blaming Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
We’ve learned the doctor-shooter had a 1996 explosives charge, well before the current right-leaning media was fully developed, well before Bill O’Reilly had much viewership, and well before the hyper-partisan political hate speech from both sides on Lewinsky, Iraq, and all the issues of the past 13 years that have further inflamed passions. We’ve learned the shooter’s brother said there is likely some sort of mental illness at play. And we’ve learned the shooter had been associated with a radical right-wing group. As rhetoric from these groups makes clear, they think voices like Rush are way too mainstream or establishment for their taste. And again, every political view has its crazies, and for every violent anti-abortionist, one can point to an environmental extremist willing to use violence.
Some people do not have the same concept of right and wrong, they are not rational, they find any excuse for violence, and there is not always a neat, clean, rational explanation for why they did what they did. This particular shooter, like the recruiting station shooter, seemed destined for tragic violence regardless of what he listened to on the radio.
As to the right-wing “climate” of hatred, on Monday there was a shooting at a U.S. Army recruiting station where a recruiter was killed. Is there a left-wing anti-military climate of hate? We’ve heard about war for oil, interrogators getting their jollies by torturing, the military not caring about civilian deaths, the previous administration being a fascist military dictatorship, and on and on. For every Rush Limbaugh (which I’m not sure why we’re singling him out, as abortion is quite low on his priority list) embraced by Republican politicians, there is a Michael Moore being seated next to President Carter at the Democratic National Convention. For every Donald Rumsfeld saying legitimate war criticism was aiding the enemy, there is a President Clinton blaming Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
We’ve learned the doctor-shooter had a 1996 explosives charge, well before the current right-leaning media was fully developed, well before Bill O’Reilly had much viewership, and well before the hyper-partisan political hate speech from both sides on Lewinsky, Iraq, and all the issues of the past 13 years that have further inflamed passions. We’ve learned the shooter’s brother said there is likely some sort of mental illness at play. And we’ve learned the shooter had been associated with a radical right-wing group. As rhetoric from these groups makes clear, they think voices like Rush are way too mainstream or establishment for their taste. And again, every political view has its crazies, and for every violent anti-abortionist, one can point to an environmental extremist willing to use violence.
Some people do not have the same concept of right and wrong, they are not rational, they find any excuse for violence, and there is not always a neat, clean, rational explanation for why they did what they did. This particular shooter, like the recruiting station shooter, seemed destined for tragic violence regardless of what he listened to on the radio.
# posted by : 2:21 PM
: 2:21 PM
My bad with a type (1st paragraph). We didn't have a VP killed in a duel, we of course, had a sitting VP kill someone else in a duel.
# posted by : 2:23 PM
: 2:23 PM
In answer to your question, it seems that the recruiting station killer was an anti-government Muslim, and there is no question that there is a network of hate-talkers who speak to that audience. The start of my post recognized that hate-talkers on the left incited people like Ayres, so obviously I do not view this as a right/left thing, but a malfunction in our discourse.
As for responsibility, I mean that word in the way that lawyers use it. I don't think hate talkers should be legally liable. However, as a matter of personal principles, I think it is wrong to engage in political discourse that characterizes the other side as evil rather than just wrong.
As for responsibility, I mean that word in the way that lawyers use it. I don't think hate talkers should be legally liable. However, as a matter of personal principles, I think it is wrong to engage in political discourse that characterizes the other side as evil rather than just wrong.
Oh, and your logic on Hamilton/Burr-- what was, shall be-- would support all kinds of terible things that we have changed (ie, slavery).
We are capable of improvement as a nation.
We are capable of improvement as a nation.
Prof. Osler,
That’s completely fair on all points. My point on Burr isn’t to say that we can’t improve, just that the reality in a country that protects free speech is that demonizing speech will be ever-present. And the other point I didn’t do a good job of making is this: when you say “Rush and his ilk” I read it to mean mainstream conservative media, and whatever climate they may or may not have created, unless there is evidence that the shooter was directly influenced by them, I think it is painting with too broad a brush to link Rush with a that level of hate. I think it is more likely the shooter was influenced by right-wing fringe voices that the likes of Rush/Hannity/O’Reilly would condemn. If so, then the shooter would have been influenced by the kind of hate already condemned by reasonable people in society and it is then unfair to use the shooting event to stimulate a conversation about the discourse of Rush and his ilk.
I’ve been trying to think of analogous situations, and what came to mind was Columbine. After the shooting some wanted to have a national conversation on bullying and others on violent video games. But with the benefit of time, we now know that the shooters were not particularly influenced by either. One young man was a sociopath and the other was severely depressed. And while bullying and violent video games are completely legitimate topics to analyze, the evidence was not there to make the cause-and-effect link with the tragic shootings.
That’s completely fair on all points. My point on Burr isn’t to say that we can’t improve, just that the reality in a country that protects free speech is that demonizing speech will be ever-present. And the other point I didn’t do a good job of making is this: when you say “Rush and his ilk” I read it to mean mainstream conservative media, and whatever climate they may or may not have created, unless there is evidence that the shooter was directly influenced by them, I think it is painting with too broad a brush to link Rush with a that level of hate. I think it is more likely the shooter was influenced by right-wing fringe voices that the likes of Rush/Hannity/O’Reilly would condemn. If so, then the shooter would have been influenced by the kind of hate already condemned by reasonable people in society and it is then unfair to use the shooting event to stimulate a conversation about the discourse of Rush and his ilk.
I’ve been trying to think of analogous situations, and what came to mind was Columbine. After the shooting some wanted to have a national conversation on bullying and others on violent video games. But with the benefit of time, we now know that the shooters were not particularly influenced by either. One young man was a sociopath and the other was severely depressed. And while bullying and violent video games are completely legitimate topics to analyze, the evidence was not there to make the cause-and-effect link with the tragic shootings.
# posted by : 4:02 PM
: 4:02 PM
What if we truly think they're evil? What if you're a true believer on the left, and actually believe that Bush was a reactionary, fascist, neo-Nazi, racist, sexist, homophobe, imperialist, that wants to wage a religious war on all of the non-Western world (and France). AND, now he is the president of the United States. Wouldn't you have to consider that person (Bush in this example) as something more than wrong? Wouldn't you potentially think they're evil? And couldn't you be justified in that belief?
And shouldn't you voice that belief?
And shouldn't you voice that belief?
# posted by : 5:50 PM
: 5:50 PM
I generally oppose limits on political speech. I don't like flag burning (or flag burners)--but I will defend the right to burn the flag.
Outrageous political speech is part of the messiness of freedom.
Post a Comment
Outrageous political speech is part of the messiness of freedom.
<< Home
