Why Right-Wing Fearmongers Have Blood on Their Hands
Marian
16, 2011 |
For some time now, it's been something of a reflexive response by
media pundits, particularly conservatives and "moderate" liberals, to
point to mental illness when some violent and unstable person commits
a horrifying act in the name of extremist right-wing beliefs.
If they're just mentally ill, you can't blame the people whose ideas
they happened to pick up, can you?
Thus we have witnessed a steady stream of "isolated incidents" in
which angry, mentally unstable men walk into churches and shoot their
liberal targets in the head, or walk into public spaces and open fire,
or crash their planes into government offices and gun down police
officers.
Yet when all these, and *a long list of similar incidents, occur, they
are dismissed as "isolated incidents." Because, you see the
perpetrators are just "nutcases."
Likewise, when an oddball college dropout named Jared Loughner walks
up to Representative Gabrielle Giffords in a Safeway parking lot and
shoots her point-blank, then empties another 30 rounds into the crowd
around her, killing six and wounding 14 more ~ well, that can't be
laid at the feet of his incoherent (but largely right-wing) belief
system, can it? After all, he's obviously got mental problems, right?
Therefore, it's just another isolated incident.
That's a cop-out, and a dangerous one. One of its chief consequences,
in fact, is that the list of "isolated incidents" ~ and the body count
that accompanies it ~ will just keep mounting. At some point, people
will realize that the incidents are perhaps not so isolated after all.
This is particularly the case in a place like Arizona, where the
political environment has become increasingly toxic in recent years.
Conservative hatred of all things liberal has become so ingrained in
the local discourse ~ thanks in large part to the pervasive popularity
of right-wing hate talkers like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, as
well as the omnipresence of Fox News and its "opinion" pundits ~ that
it is becoming increasingly difficult to self-identify as a Democrat
or a liberal in much of the state.
People are afraid ~ with good reason ~ that doing so will expose them
to vicious verbal and perhaps physical attacks. (Will Bunch *wrote
about this phenomenon in some detail for Media Matters recently.)
People on the ground in Arizona, like Pima County Sheriff Clarence
Dupnik, know this reality intimately ~ which is why *he immediately
spoke out after the Giffords shootings, denouncing the "climate of
hate" that had come to dominate the political environment in his
state, and pointing in particular to right-wing radio and TV pundits
who whip up those animosities for ratings, profits, and sheer mean-
spirited viciousness.
So the Right's response is what we have seen in previous "isolated
incidents": Because Loughner is a "nutcase" with views from all over
the conspiracy planet, the Right can't be blamed for his act.
To an extent, they are correct: They certainly can't be blamed in any
direct sense, and especially not in a criminal sense. But neither are
they without culpability ~ especially when the rhetoric upon which the
mentally unstable person has acted violently is as deliberately
inflammatory and as profoundly irresponsible as what we have seen from
the American Right in recent years.
The Right, indeed, bears the lion's share of the blame for creating a
toxic environment in which unstable people come to believe that their
political opponents are the embodiment of pure evil ~ that they are
destroying America deliberately and maliciously ~ and therefore must
be dealt with violently. This is an environment that today exists not
just in Arizona, but everywhere in America.
Put simply (and colloquially): There's been a lot of crazy talk from
the American Right in recent years. And crazy talk ~ especially
condoned at the highest social levels ~ has a powerful effect on
people who are already crazy.
I often refer to *a case that happened here in Seattle back in 1986 to
help explain the dynamic at work here: On Christmas eve, a mentally
ill loner named David Lewis Rice showed up at the Madrona-neighborhood
home of Charles and Annie Goldmark and their two boys. Posing as a
deliveryman, he forced his way into their home with a toy gun, tied
the family up and chloroformed them, and then proceeded over the next
several hours to torture and slowly kill them.
Why did Rice do this? It seemed he favored hanging out with a local
collection of former John Birch Society members, ardent McCarthyite
conspiracists, who called themselves the "Duck Club." Their regular
gatherings at a local watering hole were largely devoted to
extemporizing on the evils of local suspected Communists ~ among them
the Goldmark family.
Charles Goldmark's father, a Chelan rancher and state legislator in
the 1950s, had been at the center of a landmark early-'60s libel case
in which some Spokane-area Red-hunters were successfully sued for
falsely smearing Goldmark and his wife as "card-carrying Communists."
In the minds of the Duck Clubbers, there was no doubt they were
Communists then ~ and still were now.
Of course, in reality, not only were the elder Goldmarks innocent of
the smear, as they proved in court, but their children were equally if
not more so. Nonetheless, when the libel case turned back up in the
news in 1986, their names were prominently mentioned in angry
discussions at the Duck Club ~ where David Lewis Rice lapped up every
word. Indeed, he decided to take it upon himself to rid the world of
the awful Communist menace posed by Charles and Annie Goldmark and
their two children, and so he did, on Christmas Eve.
Now, could those murders, which gripped and horrified the city of
Seattle, especially as the details emerged, be blamed on the Duck
Club? Well, no ~ at least not criminally speaking. They had broken no
laws and had not directly incited Rice to violence. But ethically and
morally speaking ~ that was another matter altogether.
The people involved in the Duck Club, some of whom had once been
prominent in the Republican Party, were forever tainted, their
reputations destroyed. Everyone in Seattle understood that, having
filled David Lewis Rice's head with lies and smears ~ the kind that
dehumanized and demonized the victims ~ the blood of the Goldmark
family was on their hands as well.
Likewise, when:
An avid consumer of right-wing talk radio (notably Michael Savage) and
Fox News punditry (including Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity) walks
into a Knoxville church in 2008 and *opens fire, killing two and
wounding four, having *written a manifesto declaring: "Liberals are a
pest like termites. Millions of them. Each little bite contributes to
the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves
of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they
gather";
Another avid consumer of Bill O'Reilly's columns walks into a church
in 2009 (following O'Reilly's 28 on-air references to "Tiller the Baby
Killer") and *shoots abortion provider George Tiller in the head;
A young *Glenn Beck watcher, having been warned that President Obama
intends to take his guns away, *guns down three police officers in
Pittsburgh in 2009 because of that fear;
Another Glenn Beck fan, having been convinced from watching Beck's Fox
show that the Tides Foundation was playing a leading role in a plot to
destroy America, sets out in 2010 armed to the teeth with a *plan to
shoot up the Foundation's Bay Area offices, only to be short-circuited
when Oakland police pull him over and he engages them in a shootout
instead;
When these things happen, common sense tells us that, even if the
blood of these victims doesn't fully coat these hatemongers' hands, it
is at least splattered on them.
That is to say, there was a level of moral and ethical culpability
involved in the irresponsible speech that inspired David Lewis Rice,
as well as in the speech that inspired these other acts.
When you fill an unstable person's head with a pack of crazy ideas
that fuel their anger and give them a target for it, and when they
then act out violently against that target, social and economic
consequences should ensue.
At its core, hate talk of this kind ~ the kind that lies about people,
holds them up for demonization, and creates permission in the minds of
the violent to act out ~ is deeply irresponsible speech, and we know
it.
It is, like all hate speech, fully protected speech. But as *Sheriff
Dupnik put it this week: "Free speech is free speech, but it's not
without consequences." For all parties involved.
It's true that major-media pundits don't have the immediate personal
proximity to the inspiration of a horrendous act that the Duck
Clubbers had. Conversely, those small-time fearmongers were merely
being irresponsible in their speech on a small scale, before a very
limited group of listeners ~ while major-media pundits have audiences
of millions.
Thanks to the power of their megaphones, their responsibilities ~ and
their failure to live up to them ~ are exponentially that much
greater.
Thus the problem on a large scale is really one of media ethics. If
major-level pundits are spewing irresponsible speech to the masses on
a large scale, their responsibility for what ensues is profound
indeed.
The critical components that distinguish irresponsible speech from
responsible speech are interworking and interdependent, but they
involve standards that are universally recognized by journalists as
fundamental to their profession: truthfulness, accuracy, and fairness.
Thus irresponsible speech usually has five features:
It is factually false, or so grossly distorted and misleading as to
constitute functional falsity.
It holds certain targeted individuals or groups of people up for
vilification and demonization.
It smears them with false or misleading information that depicts them
in a degraded light.
It depicts them as either emblematic, or the actual source, of a
significant problem or a major threat.
It leads its audience to conclude that the solution to the problem
manifested by these people is their elimination.
In the Goldmark case, the Duck Club members not only demonized the
Goldmarks, but they told Rice things that were simply not true ~
though the tellers wished ardently that they were true, they were
purely concoctions of their fevered imaginations.
This is the case with so much far-right wingnuttery ~ the "Birther"
conspiracy theories, the FEMA-camp claims, the "constitutionalist"
theories about taxation and the Federal Reserve, the belief that
President Obama is out to take away their guns, to list just a few
examples ~ and yet people believe them anyway.
Mainly because major-media figures and leading right-wing politicians
have assured them that they are true.
This rhetoric acts as a kind of wedge between the people who absorb it
and the real world. A cognitive dissonance arises from believing
things that are provably untrue, and people who fanatically cling to
beliefs that do not comport with reality find themselves increasingly
willing to buy into other similarly unhinged beliefs.
For those who are already unhinged, the effects are particularly
toxic.
All of these paranoid theories, you'll observe, serve the explicit
purpose of creating scapegoats. A number of them have taken hold in
the mainstream public discourse because they have been presented
seriously for discussion by various right-wing talking heads, most
notably Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, with full-throated support from Rush
Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Michelle
Malkin, and Sarah Palin.
But when we point out their ethical and moral culpability, they
inevitably blame it on the "crazy" people. And who, after all, can
take responsibility for "crazy" people?
I say: The people who fill their heads with crazy talk can.
David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle and the
author of five books, including most recently (with John Amato) Over
the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane. He is
also the managing editor of CrooksandLiars.com and writes for the
Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog.
© 2011 Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
http://www.alternet.org/story/149554/
Marian
Lloyd Bonafide
ylem
Ylem
9876Geno
>
> read more »
Be very careful mabout "Them and Us" Marian.
Séimí mac Liam
1af30d...@k25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> But when we point out their ethical and moral culpability, they
> inevitably blame it on the "crazy" people. And who, after all, can
> take responsibility for "crazy" people?
>
> I say: The people who fill their heads with crazy talk can.
>
Does the name John Hinckley ring a bell? Should we jail Martin Scorsese?
Robert De Niro? Get real, Marian. There is no way to know what mentally
ill people will pick up on and twist until it entwines with their
delusional state. What we have is a young man whose world is being
twisted, literally, beyond all reason, who is casting about for anything
which will seem to help it all make sense again. The effort is bound to
fail and he could just as easily have taken to painting his nude body
with caramel syrup and wearing a pink pom-pom on the head of his dick...
but nobody made that movie. Did they?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
seymore
sputnik and they did NOTHING about him. also, the shooter was
completely influenced by LEFTY shit... the communist manifesto, left
wing movies about hate Jesus, he hated Bush and was a "911 truther",
was convinced that "global warming exists" and so on and son on. the
little creep is a wild eyed liberal leftist and one of ewer own kind.
JD
ylem
You're a fucking liar.
Ylem
Dink
Now there's a convincing rebuttal.<g>
--
Dink {Vox clamantis in deserto}
Mind where the huskies go and do not eat the yellow snow.
ylem
wrote:
> Marian <lustr...@gmail.com> wrote in news:54bbffcc-4d64-4c87-9d5d-
> 1af30dde3...@k25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > But when we point out their ethical and moral culpability, they
> > inevitably blame it on the "crazy" people. And who, after all, can
> > take responsibility for "crazy" people?
>
> > I say: The people who fill their heads with crazy talk can.
>
> Does the name John Hinckley ring a bell? Should we jail Martin Scorsese?
> Robert De Niro? Get real, Marian. There is no way to know what mentally
> ill people will pick up on and twist until it entwines with their
> delusional state. What we have is a young man whose world is being
> twisted, literally, beyond all reason, who is casting about for anything
> which will seem to help it all make sense again. The effort is bound to
> fail and he could just as easily have taken to painting his nude body
> with caramel syrup and wearing a pink pom-pom on the head of his dick...
> but nobody made that movie. Did they?
> --
> Saint Séimí mac Liam
How about Eric Rudolf, Richard Poplawski, Joshua Cartwright, John
Patrick Bedell, James W. Von Brunn, Scott Roeder,
Jim David Adkisson, Keith Luke, Timothy McVeigh, Joseph Stack, and
Paul Hill?
No connection to right-wing agitators and media talking heads, right?
You can't run away from the truth.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149551/right-wing_terrorism%3A_murders_grow_on_the_far_right
Ylem
ylem
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:40:07 -0800 (PST), ylem wrote:
> >On Jan 18, 2:02 pm, seymore <seymoredonk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> the onliest problem is that the shooter was well known to shurf
> >> sputnik and they did NOTHING about him. also, the shooter was
> >> completely influenced by LEFTY shit... the communist manifesto, left
> >> wing movies about hate Jesus, he hated Bush and was a "911 truther",
> >> was convinced that "global warming exists" and so on and son on. the
> >> little creep is a wild eyed liberal leftist and one of ewer own kind.
>
> >> JD
>
> >You're a fucking liar.
> >Ylem
>
> Now there's a convincing rebuttal.<g>
> --
> Dink
There's nothing there to rebut...he's a fucking liar.
What's more, if you have a brain - you KNOW he's a fucking liar.
Ylem
seymore_donkies
well.. if I am... please point out FACTS and LINKS to prove it.
please do.
guess what, freak? ewe can't. ewe are a fucking violent hypocrite
liberal idiot with a gun.'
JD
seymore_donkies
well.. if I am... please point out FACTS and LINKS to prove it.
please do.
guess what, freak? ewe can't. ewe are a fucking violent hypocrite
liberal idiot with a gun.
I told the TRUTH. now rebut it.
JD
Bob G.
>
> There's nothing there to rebut...he's a fucking liar.
> What's more, if you have a brain - you KNOW he's a fucking liar.
When are you going to remember yYem, that a man who cannot fuck cannot
possibly be a fucking liar?
Bob G
seymore
wrote:
very cute... but once again ewe avoided the subject:
the onliest problem is that the shooter was well known to shurf
sputnik and they did NOTHING about him. also, the shooter was
completely influenced by LEFTY shit... the communist manifesto, left
wing movies about hate Jesus, he hated Bush and was a "911 truther",
was convinced that "global warming exists" and so on and so on. the
Marian
> On Jan 18, 12:56 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
> wrote:
> > Marian <lustr...@gmail.com> wrote in news:
>
> > > inevitably blame it on the "crazy" people. And who, after all, can
> > > take responsibility for "crazy" people?
>
> > > I say: The people who fill their heads with crazy talk can.
>
> > Does the name John Hinckley ring a bell? Should we jail Martin Scorsese?
> > Robert De Niro? Get real, Marian. There is no way to know what mentally
> > ill people will pick up on and twist until it entwines with their
> > delusional state. What we have is a young man whose world is being
> > twisted, literally, beyond all reason, who is casting about for anything
> > which will seem to help it all make sense again. The effort is bound to
> > fail and he could just as easily have taken to painting his nude body
> > with caramel syrup and wearing a pink pom-pom on the head of his dick...
> > but nobody made that movie. Did they?
> > --
> > Saint Séimí mac Liam
>
> How about Eric Rudolf, Richard Poplawski, Joshua Cartwright, John
> Patrick Bedell, James W. Von Brunn, Scott Roeder,
> Jim David Adkisson, Keith Luke, Timothy McVeigh, Joseph Stack, and
> Paul Hill?
>
> No connection to right-wing agitators and media talking heads, right?
> You can't run away from the truth.
>
>
> Ylem
Excellent article.
"White Men Are Never Labeled Terrorists
"That leads to a common thread among these murderous incidents. None
has been labeled the work of terrorists by authorities or the media.
All involved white men, most of whom ~ like Jared Loughner in Tucson ~
have been deemed troubled or disturbed by authorities and various
media outlets."
Marian
ylem
Opps!
My bad...he's a liar who can't fuck.
Ylem
Jan
wrote:
Then prove it, you Marxist liar.
Jan
"If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined"
Jan
wrote:
Just because you and Ylem have no balls is not reason to assume others are so
afflicted.
Jan
wrote:
>On Jan 18, 5:36 pm, "Bob G." <rlloydgeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 5:55 pm, ylem <primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > There's nothing there to rebut...he's a fucking liar.
>> > What's more, if you have a brain - you KNOW he's a fucking liar.
>> > Ylem-
>>
>> When are you going to remember yYem, that a man who cannot fuck cannot
>> possibly be a fucking liar?
>>
>> Bob G
>
>Opps!
>My bad...he's a liar who can't fuck.
>Ylem
While you are a Marxist, eunuch liar.
ylem
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:23:29 -0800 (PST), ylem <primordial_y...@yahoo.com>
I always tell the truth, Marx had many good insights but I am
essentially a Keynesian (I'm also apparently the only one here who has
actually read Adam Smith), and my junk works fine.
*/;)>
Ylem
ylem
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:55:19 -0800 (PST), ylem <primordial_y...@yahoo.com>
I am not going to waste the time to refute stupid lies...whic everyone
with a brain KNOWS is a stupid lie.
Ylem
Marian
ISLAMIZATION of the U.S. Continues...
http://www.picturetrail.com/gid6894769
Marian
Marian
Marian
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:40:07 -0800 (PST), ylem wrote:
> >On Jan 18, 2:02 pm, seymore <seymoredonk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> the onliest problem is that the shooter was well known to shurf
> >> sputnik and they did NOTHING about him. also, the shooter was
> >> completely influenced by LEFTY shit... the communist manifesto, left
> >> wing movies about hate Jesus, he hated Bush and was a "911 truther",
> >> was convinced that "global warming exists" and so on and son on. the
> >> little creep is a wild eyed liberal leftist and one of ewer own kind.
>
> >> JD
>
> >You're a fucking liar.
> >Ylem
>
> Now there's a convincing rebuttal.<g>
> --
> Dink
How's this? Simple, to the point.
Guns are too easy to obtain everywhere in this country. Period.
:: :: GUNS :: ::
http://www.picturetrail.com/gid7848736
Marian
Jan
wrote:
>On Jan 18, 8:41 pm, Jan <johnr...@bell.net> wrote:
You do not tell the truth, you lie and misrepresent continually. Keynes has been
discredited and is one of the reasons your country is in dire financial straits.
You may have read Adam Smith, but I doubt you understood his works.
Jan
wrote:
>On Jan 18, 8:39 pm, Jan <johnr...@bell.net> wrote:
You can't refute the truth, which is why you lie and spread your poison.
Anyone with a brain can pick out your lies easily.