[EL] new thread responding to Coney linking right-wing rhetoric and political violence
Lillie Coney
coney at lillieconey.net
Mon Jul 23 14:23:28 PDT 2012
It was a close election, followed by the Bay of Pigs, then about a year later the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy was in Texas as he prepared for re-election and the debate was raging over what another
term would mean. What would it have meant for those who wanted to see Communism succeed,
what would it have meant to social change, and the potential for war or conflict with Russia. People
were frightened by the Cuban Missile Crisis and that fear continued until the end of the Cold War.
The weak on defense message--Reagan campaign's bear commercial was an excellent example
of the weak on national defense dichotomy of political discourse post 1960s.
The focus should be on the climate were political debate happens. The people who are raising the
stakes on campaigns and political debate are not politically active people--if these people are in
to politics they would think in terms of the next election is how they would think. These are outliers
not mainstream people who take the message and make it into what they think it means. Do not take
this to mean conservative republicans--I doubt is many of them finding voting to be enough nor would
winning an election be enough. These are not people you see and have a conversation with about politics.
The underlying goal of the e-mail I sent was to address the climate of political discourse--know that these
people are out there. How they view the world is not one election at a time, but all or nothing--being
aware and considering that they are part of the overall world of politics can change the course, tone and
perspective of American political discourse.
There are two tiers to the argument: the get the base out messaging and the overall mode that is left behind once
all of the votes (hopefully) are counted. Tolerating defeat and rallying behind the elected official
should be the default--not a never ending campaign mind set. At this point in time this approach
may be as old as the 1970s. We need that level of finality to any political contest and an affirmation
that there are lines that should not be crossed no matter what.
The next election following Kennedy's assassination the Republican's nominated Goldwater. At
that time he was so far out of the center of American political thought that the Johnson campaign's
Daisy commercial ended his bid for the presidency.
I do not smear people--I know libertarians and conservative republicans. They agree that something
is wrong and would promote a fair discussion without it degenerating into a I think you insulted me
therefore I am insulted. This is within the parties were the tempering has to come such as when McCain
went to the Floor of the Senate followed by many others in the Republican Party over a comment against
a staffer in the current administration made by a member of the House was a great moment of civility.
I do want to get us back to a time when both parties could go through their nominating process
and the general election then pause to govern before the campaign cycles started again. The
time for beginning campaigns began to shrink in the 1980s and now we are in perpetual
campaign mode and the climate has gotten more extreme. The bases of each party is
basically static it is a matter of intensity of interest in voting, volunteering etc that is at question.
if they are not motivated then the candidate will not win. If the only formula for motivating
the base is a message based on fear then that is a problem. If the message group contains
people who will take that message to an extreme that is a real issue that should be addressed.
It is not to say that Democrats do not have a base to motivate--but what are the consequences
of one verses the other party's tactics. There is intolerance for violence or suggestions of
it--that is just part of the package if you are working campaigns. You can talk about rights
and protecting the social safety net during an election season--but using or suggesting any
means other than voting is out of the picture.
Would you agree that this should be the focus of elections regardless of the platform--we should
promote voting, volunteering and messaging around voting as the answer to diminishing tension?
On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
> 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-promoted-rightist-causes-in-60-s.html?pagewanted=all&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, the Weathermen, and Jim Jones (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&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/20120723/0603168b/attachment.html>
View list directory