- Image via Wikipedia
After the terrible shootings in Arizona, some folks rushed to use the spilled blood as fuel in their political machines. Some hurried to blame the right, especially Sarah Palin and her infamous map of “surveyor symbols.” Others leaped to place the blame on the left.
Among the more reasonable folks and experts the consensus arose that the shooter was motivated by neither the right nor the left. Rather, he seemed to have made his choice under the influence of his own troubled mental states. As such, the blame seems to rest (as it should) primarily on the person who pulled the trigger. This incident did, of course, raise legitimate concerns about various relevant issues such as whether or not more laws should be created in the hopes of preventing another incident like this one.
Some people do, of course, want to pass laws against speech containing violent rhetoric and images that are suggestive of violence-at least when these are directed at politicians. The hope is, naturally enough, that such laws will help prevent future incidents.
Those who traffic in angry rhetoric were quick to angrily denounce such proposals as violating their right to free expression. While I am not in agreement with the angry rhetoric, I do agree that such laws would tend to violate that right. I also contend that such new laws are neither needed nor desirable.
One reason to not add new laws is the obvious fact that actual threats of violence are already against the law. As such, there does not seem to be a compelling need to add new laws to make illegal what is already illegal.
However, some of the suggestions involve laws that go beyond outlawing actual threats. The idea seems to be that new laws should cover vaguely threatening rhetoric and suggestive images.
While this might have some appeal, to expand the laws to restrict expression that might merely be seen as vaguely threatening or suggestive of violence (like cross hairs on a map) would seem to infringe too far into the freedom of expression without adequate justification. After all, restricting the freedom of expression requires justifying that restriction-typically on the basis of harm or potential harm. Something that merely seems threatening or suggestive does not seem to be harmful enough to warrant such a restriction.
These two points could be combined into something of a dilemma: if an act of expression is an actual threat, then it is already covered by existing laws and hence no new law is needed. If an act of expression cannot be classified as an actual threat, then it would seem to be protected by the freedom of expression and hence no new law is needed. Thus, there would seem to be no need for new laws in this area.
There is also the practical concern that laws vague enough to cover what is vaguely threatening or suggestive of violence could easily be misused by politicians against their opponents and critics. This would, as some have said, have a chilling effect on free speech.
In light of these reasons, it would seem that no new restrictions on expression should be made into laws. This, oddly enough, puts me in agreement with folks who want to continue to use angry and violent political rhetoric. However, I do disagree with them in a key way.
While I do agree that people should be free to spew hateful rhetoric that does not cross over into actual threats and incitements to violence, I also believe that people should tone down the violent rhetoric and the anger. At the very least, people should consider whether their anger is proportional to reality. Political discussion and the general good are not well served by vitriol. They are not aided by disproportionate anger. They are not enhanced by rage. While we do have disagreements, we should remember that we are not blood enemies and that we can discuss our differences in a rational way, free of allusions to violence. Before sputtering in rage, we should think of those people lying dead on the tar and temper our words. After all, their blood shows us the true fruits of hatred and rage.
My point is, of course, that there is an important distinction between what people should be allowed to express and what they should choose to express. To use an analogy, there should be no law that forbids spouses from referring to each other as “whore”, “sh@thead” and so on. However, spouses really should not use such language with each other. Likewise for the angry rhetoric-people have the right to use it, but they should really consider not doing so.
I personally don’t think that putting crosshairs on a map is particularly violent or threatening.
On a person’s face, yes; on a map, no.
I agree, at least in this context. Palin clearly did not intend that anyone kill her “targets”-it was merely part of her “tough gal” persona. In another context (for example someone with a history of violence creating such a map) it might be threatening.
Might shooting a moose from a helicopter be judged part of a history of violence? 🙂 Would it change the judgment if the individual shot the animal for kicks, wounded it, and left it to die? Context. . . context. . .
“Maxine’s Health care Plan
Senior Health Care Solution
So you’re a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?
Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SHOOT TWO SENATORS AND TWO REPRENTATIVES. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.
And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.
Is this a great country or what?! ”
Threatening? Merely humorous in a macabre sort of way? Mature discourse? Does it make any difference that I highlighted the most “interesting” sentence with caps? should such speech be outlawed. No. Obviously no.
Should it be criticized, analyzed, psychoanalyzed ridiculed for its inanity, it’s dangerously immature of the workings of a great society? Of course. Are we really that eager and willing to turn to Third World treatment of our prison population? Would we expect a prisoner to pay for his own transplant? And where would the money come from for that? Or should we simply let him die, though his sentence may be 5-10? Mdaxine’s world is so damn simple.
Seriously, folks— not humorously now— how tyrannical would political conditions have to be before one should be allowed/encouraged in any context to shoot four government officials to solve political and social problems?
Erik: am I right in assuming that “Maxine” is just some internet spam? If so, why are you taking it so seriously?
As I pointed out in an earlier post, I received it from my conservative friend (technically friends-husband and wife). They think it’s funny. My understanding of the term ‘spam’ is that spam’s mass mailing. This thing’s been out there since at least early ’09. I just got around to me –let me check my email now– Jan.5,2011. So, simple answer–not spam.
And not “JUST SOME INTERNET SPAM”.
I believe I’ve explained why I take it so seriously. The only way I could make that clearer for you, I[‘m afraid, is to change your world view.
Personally, when I get emails in poor taste I just press “Delete” instead of obsessing over them…
I believe you call it “obsessing” because my view of the email doesn’t fit yours. It casts a negative light on your world view.
I call it recognizing and emphasizing something worth noting and analyzing–PARTICULARLY in light of the Tuscon tragedy. If 19 people hadn’t been shot, inclulding six killed, I’d have never mentioned it. It’s not an “obscure email” or “just some internet spam”#* no matter how often you and kernunos repeat the words and phrases. As I said above, “The only way I could make that clearer for you, I‘m afraid, is to change your world view.”
#*And not only because it’s neither ‘obscure’ nor ‘spam’.
So, TJ, how do you know this comment is directed at you? The indent is one indication, but the real indication is that I used your name — TJ.
Your image — such as a photo of your face — identifies you, and your name identifies you. They are equivalent as representations of you.
The crosshairs on a map you are talking about were linked to names — there is no meaningful difference between linking them to names and linking them to faces.
That said, I agree that this is a rather mild case of violent imagery, though still reprehensible to the extent that it is.
I would not suggest making angry rhetoric illegal. However, I do believe that, to the extent possible, it should be made socially unacceptable.
Although there is no proof that the gunman acted in response to angry rhetoric, there is more than sufficient proof that angry rhetoric has resulted in destructive behavior. Those of us who have good memories and are old enough to remember Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusade are well aware of that. Violence, vandalism, and murder followed in her wake as she took her anti-gay campaign around the country, even though she insisted that she did not approve of violence.
More recently, politicians on the left have experienced a surge in death threats and their offices have been vandalized. By far the most likely explanation is the angry rhetoric from the right. Quite often politicians on the right attack the character of those with whom they disagree, rather than simply stating that they have a different opinion and explaining why. That sort of thing is not acceptable and should be treated as unacceptable while not making it illegal.
So, although we cannot say for certain that the political climate motivated the gunman, we also cannot say for certain that it was not a factor. In any case, it provided an opportunity to discuss the negative way in which our political institutions are operating.
“More recently, politicians on the left have experienced a surge in death threats and their offices have been vandalized.”
“Quite often politicians on the right attack the character of those with whom they disagree, rather than simply stating that they have a different opinion and explaining why.”
FRE: where is the evidence for this “surge in death threats”?
Can you provide a couple of examples of politicians on the right attacking the character of those with whom they disagree? And do you really think they exceed all the baseless charges of racism we have heard in the past couple of years?
Conventional wisdom is that people on the right think lefties are well intentioned but naive, whereas people on the left think righties are evil. Hence I would expect more character attacks coming from the left, like Obama’s “hostage takers” remarks.
Bundling sets of views with no necessary relation to each other into ‘right’ and ‘left’ is nonsensical. Why do we do that? It just seems like a mental shortcut that bypasses critical reasoning.
You’re right. Actually, I consider myself to be pragmatic rather than on the left or right. The definitions of left and right are not fixed either; they have changed over the last 20 or so years. What once would have been considered center would perhaps now be considered left.
Yes, I could provide examples, but I’d have to spend considerable time searching to find them. But surely most of us can think of examples where people who have supported the new health care legislation and other measures have had their patriotism questioned or been called communists or socialists in disparaging manners. Also, the surge in death threats has several times been reported on the news. Public opinion polls have indicated that many people are unsure of Obama’s citizenship and many believe that he was born in Kenya. Many also believe that he is a Muslim.
Oh, umbrage all around. Not so hard to find death threats from the left from previous years. Try this link:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Don’t pass up the part where a U.S. Senator and even a Nobel “Peace” Prize winner speak if killing the President. Just search for John Kerry’s name.
And again, remember “Loose Change”?
“Conventional wisdom.” Whose “conventional wisdom” exactly? Sounds more like the way some conservative would like to think righties think of lefties and lefties think of righties. . .certainly not the way lefites would like to see themselves or their view of righties, so I’m not sure this could be classifed as “conventional wisdom”. More like conservative wisdom, perhaps .
In this chapter of conservative wisdoom “righties” wear the halos. They only think the best of their fellow man. Those poor lost “lefties” are so “well intentioned but naive” . “Righties” stand above it all, because they know the way; they’ve seen the light. “Lefties” according to the same “conventional wisdom”, wield the pitchforks. In their well-intentioned naivete they think innocent, halo-bearing righties are evil! [Do lefties feel righties are evil? Who is the sacred keeper of THAT “conventional wisdom”?]All this sounds so unbearably confusing until you read the following. Then you see that the whole conventional wisdom idea — that righties see lefties as well intentioned but naive– is baloney.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/liberal_catholic_bigotry_again.html
“Catholic Left notables Michael Sean Winters and Garry Wills are part of a campaign to destroy Palin.” Doesn’t sound to me like that part of the “wisdom” from the right considers the left well-intentioned at all. Sounds more like some righties consider some on the left dangerous, destructive. Take a look.
Here is a pretty good statement of the conventional wisdom.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer072902.asp
Speaking of stupid liberals, angry conservatives
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.
For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that whatever else my colleagues might disagree about — Bosnia, John McCain, precisely how many orphans we’re prepared to throw into the snow so the rich can have their tax cuts — we all agree liberals are stupid.
We mean this, of course, in the nicest way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe — here is where they go stupid — that most everybody else is nice too. Sure, you’ve got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they’re undoubtedly depraved ’cause they’re deprived. If only we could get social conditions right — eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft — everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced.
Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.
Liberals suffer incurably from naivete, the stupidity of the good heart. Who else but that oracle of American liberalism, The New York Times, could run the puzzled headline: “Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.” But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.
Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do — self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power — without being soulless? How to understand conservative desire to abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized — or as Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, “a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers.”
Liberals, who have no head (see above), believe conservatives have no heart. When Republicans unexpectedly took control of the House in 1994, conventional wisdom immediately attributed this disturbance in the balance of the cosmos to the vote of the “angry white male” (an invention unsupported by the three polls that actually asked about anger and found three-quarters of white males (not angry.)
The “angry white male” was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog — the white male — forced to
accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.
The legend lives. Years ago it was Newt Gingrich as the Grinch. Today, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares the Bush administration the moral equivalent of Jean-Marie Le Pen, France’s far right, xenophobic, anti-Semitic heir to European fascism. But in America, writes Krugman, it is worse: “Here the angry people are already running the country.”
This article of liberal faith — that conservatism is not just wrong but angry, mean and, well, bad — produces one paradox after another. Thus the online magazine Slate article to attempt to explain the “two faces” of Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal. The puzzle is how a conservative could have such a “winning cocktail-party personality and talk-show cordiality.” Gigot, it turns out, is “Janus-faced”: regular guy — “plays basketball with working reporters” — yet conservative! “By day he wrote acid editorials … by night he polished his civilized banter (on TV).”
A classic of the genre is The New York Times news story speaking with unintended candor about bioethicist Leon Kass: “Critics of Dr. Kass’ views call him a neoconservative thinker. … But critics and admirers alike describe him as thoughtful and dignified.”
But? Neoconservative but thoughtful and dignified.
The venerable David Halberstam, writing in praise of the recently departed Ted Williams, offered yet another sighting: “He was politically conservative but in his core the most democratic of men.” Amazing.
The most troubling paradox of all, of course, is George W. Bush. Compassionate, yet conservative? Reporters were fooled during the campaign. “Because Bush seemed personally pleasant,” explained Slate, “(they) assumed his politics lay near the political center.”
What else could one assume? Pleasant and conservative? Ah, yes, Grampa told of seeing one such in the Everglades. But that was 1926.
We really need to get away from this liberal vs conservative way of thinking and instead try to make the best possible choices in each situation. Dogmatically clinging to dogma is basically unproductive.
“Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.”
This is particularly interesting.
I think human nature is fundamentally neutral. If this is true, it raises the question of how we become good or evil in a social sense; the simple answer seems to be that this is due to our individual situations in the world.
This is the justification for trying to standardized those situations that promote good and eliminate those situations that tend to promote social evil.
I think this is the most productive way to frame things. It transforms a political debate into a scientific debate; social situations that promote good or evil become matters of empirical debate and fact-checking. Likewise for determining social policy based on these debates.
In any event, I don’t think it’s necessary to believe that human nature is fundamentally good in order to find reasons for social welfare policy.
“I think human nature is fundamentally neutral. If this is true, it raises the question of how we become good or evil in a social sense; the simple answer seems to be that this is due to our individual situations in the world.”
Are you saying Nature + Nurture = 100%? Or is there some room in there for free will?
“Are you saying Nature + Nurture = 100%? Or is there some room in there for free will?”
I don’t see “Nature + Nurture = 100%” as excluding free will. If the tendencies of our actions reflect the tendencies of our will, then as our nature is our tendencies of action, our nature is what we will it to be.
Speaking for this liberal, I believe human beings are fundamentally human.
Asur,
Still not sure. Perhaps I should not have said “free will” but instead, “is there not a self”? Nature and nurture play a role, but so do the decisions that we, our selves, make independently. Tendencies are leanings, but sometimes people act against those tendencies. I am saying I do not see the self as being made up entirely of nature and nurture but also of an entity that we have control over. That what separates us as creatures of reason is our ability to first acknowledge this and second, to act on this understanding. E.g. that we are not solely products of our environment. While I can’t entirely define what that is, from my observation not everything about our actions can be explained by N&N.
“I am saying I do not see the self as being made up entirely of nature and nurture but also of an entity that we have control over.”
Hmm, I think I understand what you mean.
I use a very broad conception of ‘nature’ — not just the material component of the self, but every component.
I don’t, however, think that this is the only way to render these things; it’s completely legitimate to separate the parts differently and maintain a less inclusive concept of ‘nature’, perhaps one that adds to N&N a conception of consciousness, will, or soul — N&N&X, so to speak.
Good post!
As for FRE’s getting away from liberal vs. conservative thinking…I think we would also be better served if we stop associating conservative=right and liberal=left, since it is increasingly hard to justify but I doubt that’s going to change anytime soon.
And while I agree that we need to make the best choices, isn’t that what most of us are trying to do? But that’s not so simple is it? My “best choice” is your “clinging to dogma” and vice verse.
Getting back to the point of this post, one of my favorite political exchanges was between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill, re Lady Astor said to Churchill, “If you were my husband, I’d poison your tea,” to which he responded, “Madam, if you were my wife, I’d drink it!”. A shame it would have been had Lady Astor been afraid to speak her mind for fear of some legal action or even a social rebuke. Sir Winston could handle himself, drunk or sober.
“And while I agree that we need to make the best choices, isn’t that what most of us are trying to do? But that’s not so simple is it? My “best choice” is your “clinging to dogma” and vice verse. ”
You bring up a very important point.
I agree that most of us are trying to make the best choices; this is why our political and social conflicts are tragic — at the bottom of it, we want the same things, things like security, prosperity, and the ability to live our lives without undue interference.
But, like the drowning, we grasp and clutch at whatever seems to float, clinging to it with unreasoning ardor. We become set in our views and fall out of dialogue both with each other and with reality.
However, security, prosperity, and freedom can all be objectively defined; this is why I say we should settle on those definitions and use them to frame our debates, turning them from debates over matters of opinion into debates over matters of fact.
This is like grading an essay: Grading an essay is a subjective endeavor, hence it would seem to be a matter of opinion, except that by using a rubric of objective standards (definitions for content, clarity, grammar, and style), grading becomes an objective activity, and debates over what grade a paper deserves become debates over matters of fact — things that are much easier to handle, and handle decisively.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/conventional%20wisdom
“Meaning:
: opinions or beliefs that are held or accepted by most people ▪ Conventional wisdom in Hollywood says that a movie can’t succeed unless it stars a famous actor or actress.”
Note that the term applies to “most people” unless a modifying word or phrase (such as “in Hollywood” is included.Thus, “conservative conventional wisdom” would be a much preferred and less misleading choice.
Sorry. I’m just not convinced that Charles Krauthammer possesses meaningful insight into what is and what is not traditionally considered “conventional wisdom”.
What’s his evidence that “liberals are stupid”? “For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that . . .whatever. . . my colleagues[and I [?] might disagree about– we all agree liberals are stupid.”
So he’s specifically expressing his view of “CONSERVATIVE conventional wisdom” not “conventional wisdom” in general. Indeed, he admits he only speaks for his “colleagues”. Unless all conservatives are a dittoheaded horde, I’d be quite surprised if CK speaks for all conservatives. Thus, we narrow even further the concept of “conservative conventional wisdom”.
CK goes on to describe the liberal view of conservatives. Choosing pieces from here and there, he purports to present what you describe as the “conventional wisdom”. But, like his description of how conservatives view liberals, it’s a “conservative conventional wisdom”—skewed by conservative views. Just as a liberal’s description of the liberal view of conservatives would likely be skewed by liberal views. Neither would provide an accurate view of “conventional wisdom” in its traditional sense.
As a liberal, I see no “pleasant and conservative” paradox. My conservative friend (the one who emailed me Maxine’s Plan) is very pleasant and thoughtful. His thoughts frustrate me at times. But he’s pleasant. I can’t say that about all conservatives any more than I can say it about all liberals. I’m dismayed that CK presumes a position above it all where he can judge and express what you believe to be “the conventional wisdom.”
“I would not suggest making angry rhetoric illegal. However, I do believe that, to the extent possible, it should be made socially unacceptable.”
This is exactly correct, though I think ‘angry’ is too vague since one could angrily deliver a peaceful message, and that’s not what we mean — ‘violent’ seems the best term to me.
The law is only suitable to deal with explicit violations; the implicit carries a degree of subjectivity that the legal system is ill-equipped to deal with.
Just as FRE says, messages of implicit violence should be dealt with through social pressure.
You’re right; “angry” is too vague. I’m not sure that “violent” is the best word either. It can be difficult to choose a word that accurately expresses the intent.
Hello. Thank you for your post. I am in Bulgaria. 20 years ago people here were killing Christians, and maybe others, in their thousands, if not millions. The hatred is still in their hearts and attitudes and actions, even if not to the extent of killing.
I am part of at least one of what were their main target groups. I am also personally vulnerable in other ways. These people know how to use torture to great effect. Many people do, but here it carries more painful and horrifying echoes of a truly bloody past over which many are in denial.
I read on a discussion thread last night over exactly the situation I am in, that if confronted by this kind of hatred you will spit on your principles and intentions. As a philosophical point I agree with what you have said, but when you are already vulnerable and know you are dealing with people who have a history of taking their murderous hate to its conclusion, cool-headedness is not the order of the day. What comes at you feels disgusting. Something you can’t quite pin down. It is terrifying in its intensity. I agree with your ideal stance on restraining angry expression, but for most of us, for me, it is or has been anger or crushing humiliation and shame so intense and violating it feels like be angry or shrivel up and die. I insist on my right to express my anger in whatever way I have available to me in such a situation as long as it does no actual harm. If those who hate, fear and despise me just because of who I am feel threatened by that it should not be made my problem. What happens here is a deep violation. It is like rape.