"Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will."
The very point you make, Magpie, is the very reason the neocons are so successful and so widespread in this country - they have a very loud voice and use it, oft times with rhetoric which moves people to violence, or at the very least, serious threats of violence:
ReplyDeleteRepublican Michael McCaul - TX
Republican Joe Barton - TX
Republican Todd Akin - MO
Republican Wally Herger - CA
Republican Michele Bachmann - MN
Republican Steve King - IA
Republican Sarah Palin - AK
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/sarah-palin-gop-encouraging-tea-party-violence-video
The right appeals to the lower income class by building them up and manipulating them into thinking they are actually middle income class people (Joe Bageant) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9J-Dy0OcKw and have learned well how to use the media, the massive neocon religious, etc.
It is atypical for the more educated/informed public of the left to behave in the disruptive manner the necons have learned to use, therefore their voice is quiet and meek in comparison.
Krugman is toxic, and studiously ignorant.
ReplyDeleteI understand the differences between liberals and conservatives, and I can appreciate the liberalism of honest, thinking and well-spoken people like you, Magpie.
For this reason, I cannot understand why you latch on to such low trash as put out by Krugman. He shows no nexus between rhetoric and action, marshals no facts, uses no logic. This is pure partisan pontificating. Great red
meat for the unthinking sweaty hordes, but one comes away just a little dumber after reading it.
It is telling that liberal US magazines/web sites (that have been highly critical of Palin) Salon and Slate have largely avoided this kind of vacuous bluster.
For some balance, I respectfully submit to you three links.
John Hayward fisks the Krugman piece. I don't claim Krugman is completely wrong and Hayward completely right, but it is useful to read this piece to get a good sense of both sides of the debate:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41087
Conservative Jay Nordlinger's piece highlights similar violence-themed rhetoric from the left. My point is not to prove liberals do it more; that is as ridiculous, stupid and completely unprovable as Krugman's vapid claim. The purpose is to remind everyone that a few years ago we were subjected to a book and a movie fantasizing about the assassination of President George Bush, among many other lefty hate pieces. "Both sides do it" is not a defense, but it does discredit Krugman.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256765/hypocrisy-unending-jay-nordlinger
Finally, here's a view from the free speech left...
Steve Kornacki at Salon says, let's Not Make this Something it isn't:
http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/loughner_not_though
I provide these links not to preach to you but to provide you an opposing view. I see you as a thinking liberal, I enjoy reading your blog, so it surprised me to see you fall prey to Krugman's biased, intellectually hollow blather.
Silverfiddle,
ReplyDelete"I cannot understand why you latch on to such low trash as put out by Krugman"
It's pretty simple. I opened up the New York Times, saw the op-ed, saw he contrasted Beck and O'Reilly (whom I despise, the former in particular) with Maddow and Olbermann (neither of whom have ever offended me), and saw that he was speaking out against the false equivalence, which I too perceive.
I don't know what you mean by "latch on". To my recollection I have never quoted Krugman here before.
Obviously you don't like the guy. I don't have a problem with that.
But neither is that my problem.
If I ever disappoint you, I frankly don't care.
I have about 30 minutes a day to follow the news. I'm a pretty busy guy. Occasionally I even notice news about my own country.
I would hazard less than 1% of Australians have ever heard of Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow or Krugman. I'm just keen.
I'm not an American liberal, and "Liberal" means something else here. I'm simply an Australian.
Thanks for the links. I've read the first already and will read the others tomorrow.
I like variety of opinion. I'm pretty opinionated myself so it might not seem that way, but I do.
I like other cultures and countries and par for the course with that is that the other guy is going to see things differently. Often.
I do understand the differences between liberals and conservatives in the sense you state. We here in the States have it wrong, really.
ReplyDelete"If I ever disappoint you, I frankly don't care.
This is why I was hesitant to post. I most certainly do not want to come off condescending, head wagging, or tongue clucking or scolding. Just sharing my thoughts.
We probably have pretty similar outlooks of pleasing others.
Anyway, please take my comments in the charitable manner I intended them, and your answer is fair enough. I just thought I'd add some more food for thought to your forum.
I appreciate that.
ReplyDelete