[EL] new thread responding to Coney linking right-wing rhetoric and political violence
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Mon Jul 23 13:26:01 PDT 2012
An interesting post, but the clear inference that it's somehow right-wing
vitriol inspiring this violence kind of loses some impact when you recall
that JFK was shot by a communist (who'd tried to take out a certifiable
right-wing (albeit Democrat) leader several months prior, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/obituaries/gen-edwin-walker-83-is-dead-pro
moted-rightist-causes-in-60-s.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/obituaries/gen-edwin-walker-83-is-dead-pr
omoted-rightist-causes-in-60-s.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm> &src=pm), that
RFK's killer acted in support of (as he saw it) Palestinian interests, the
fame-seeking person who shot Wallace had originally targeted Nixon but
decided he was too hard to kill (and his story, later turned into the movie
Taxi Cab, was an inspiration for Hinkley's shooting Reagan), and of course
the individual who shot Giffords also shot (and killed) a
Republican-appointed federal judge and his ideological leanings are, to put
it mildly, scrambled out of all recognition.
And recalling among others the actions of the SLA
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army> , the Weathermen
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground> , and Jim Jones
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones#Move_to_San_Francisco> (who, yes,
did manage to kill a Democratic U.S. Congressman), it's even harder to make
the argument that somehow right-wing rhetoric has taken a special toll on
Democratic candidates or is particularly inspirational to deranged
individuals.
I personally find noxious the effort to smear conservative/libertarian
rhetoric as responsible for the violent actions of raving lunatics. But if
we really want to play this game (and I do not), I would simply ask what is
more likely -that a left-oriented person (Oswald, SLA, Weathermen, Jones -
Sirhan Sirhan and Bremer can't easily and fairly be called leftists, I
think) is going to listen to Rush Limbaugh and decide "hey, they're right I
need to go shoot some Democrats," or that they're generally more tuned in to
rhetoric from their own perspective and conclude "hey, that Workers World
Daily editorial is right, I need to go eliminate some false class allies
betraying the proletariat"?
I find both propositions dubious, but for anyone trying to tie political
rhetoric to acts of violence, you'd probably be best off looking at the
whole picture, not just select snippets that fit a pre-determined
conclusion.
Best,
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Lillie
Coney
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymous candidates
There is nothing to fear but fear itself was the reply to Pearl Harbor for a
reason--people
can be at their very worse when afraid.
There is definitely a firearms voting block--the overwhelming majority are
people
who like firearms--not to kill someone, but to hunt, target shooting or for
personal
protection. However this voting block does include a small fraction of
people who believe
they need firearms because some terrible threat lurks beyond the walls of
their home--fall
of society, collapse of the economy, or other cataclysmic event. Telling
people in this corner
of gun owning America that their fears are coming true because one party
wins is dangerous.
There is strong suggestive messaging in media and entertainment that the
way to solve problems
or get attention is by using a firearm to threaten or take another's life.
To be honest very
few cases of self defense come down to firearms that are not often right at
hand, but the
person knowing what to do during a crisis.
A real issue for societal self defense starts with the message and tone of
campaigns that
candidates and parties deliver to voters. There is always an element within
society that if
provide a message and suggestions that aggression and violence are
justifiable and that
is a source of concern.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin-target-graphic-in-perspective/
Characterizing opponents as socialist, communist, enemies, threats or other
terms that would heighten fear and anxiety among those predisposed to taking
the messages literally is irresponsible. This kind of rhetoric did make
Martin
Luther King's life tenuous and finally caused his murder. Its like watching
a bad movie eveyr few decades. The formula is the
same--fear-fear-fear--easy access
to guns and ammunition and just waiting for the disturbed person. There is
no
causal link just years of ebbs and flows of spikes of fear and anxiety that
result in
awful tragedies in the private lives of citizens and sometimes the lives of
public figures.
Recent examples of the incitement of violence around political activity:
In 2008, the Chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party was killed:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/13/arkansas.shooting/index.html
Following the passage of the Health Care Reform Act one person called for
listeners to break the windows of Democratic members of Congress.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/after-hcr-passed-militia-leader-said
Subsequently several events in districts to explain the new law were
disrupted
by organized protests. There were threats against members and their staff.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august062009/reform_mobs_8-6-09.php
Giffords' Tragedy in 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
The media reply is that the out of control tone of political discourse is
coming
from both sides. I think this is the attempt as balanced reporting, but
obviously
the tone of political discourse post 2008 is harsher and meaner and it is
armed
and primed for violence. This is definitely from one side--Democrats and
their
candidates for decades have received the brunt of this violence President
Kennedy,
presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace candidate for the
nomination of president, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Martin
Luther King
as well as Medgar Evers all were victims of gun violence.
I am not saying that people who are delivering their brand of political
messaging
intend that violence should happen. Their audience has been conditioned
over
the years to need fear or have been best motivated by fear to establish
urgency
to work for their candidate and vote. The central issue is a basic campaign
strategy that relies upon motivating people through fear and not being
willing
to take the consequences that lead to political violence. It is not the
entire population
that is the threat, but the few disturbed people who would hear and react
in ways that
messengers like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin
(during her run for VP in 2008) may not intend but potentially could have
very sad
consequences.
On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:
Guess I should have read all my emails first, as Professor Gaddie beat me to
it. I blame the time-zones!
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bill
Maurer
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:45 AM
To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymous candidates
I don't have an answer for Professor McDonald, but this has occurred before.
Frankly, I think it says more about the dangers of people with significant
psychological problems getting involved in politics than anonymity, a
situation that could be changed by giving the parties greater authority to
determine who may represent them on a ballot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Low_Tax%22_Looper
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:10 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Anonymous candidates
In 2002, a candidate for Pulaski County Kentucky Sheriff was murdered by his
opponent at a campaign rally.
http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=202457
<http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=202457&c=7> &c=7
Murder goes well beyond the alleged harassment of campaign donors that we've
heard so frequently on this list about. I am sure that with a little effort,
we can compile more examples of candidates being harassed with physical
violence, starting with Gabriel Giffords or any elected official who has
received death threats. If we are going to insist that people who attempt to
influence the political process must be protected by anonymity, then why
stop at donors? Why not protect candidates and elected officials? As has
been frequently stated by those who support anonymity, only the message
matters, the identity of the messenger does not. So, why do we need to know
the identity of candidates? If we are going to protect donors with
anonymity, I say let's protect anyone who wishes to affect public policy,
from people who wish to speak about politics to friends and neighbors, to
campaign volunteers and staff, to candidates. (It is not too difficult to
find examples of volunteers be
ing physically assaulted.) We can make available special political speech
burqas equipped with Darth Vader voice modulators that people can wear if
they wish to state political beliefs publicly.
Some may counter that people who wish to engage in political speech have the
right to create a free speech burqa of their own, even though my proposal
was meant to reveal the absurdity of the idea. (Isn't that what lawyers do?
Generalize from extreme examples?) So, here is my real question for the
legal minds on the list, which I hope will spark thoughtful discussion: Why
should those who wish to use their money in political speech be granted
mechanisms to protect their anonymity while others who wish to use their
voice in political speech do not have comparable protections?
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120723/2df16777/attachment.html>
View list directory