The Consequences of Fundamentalist Demagoguery
Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and all the other demagogues whipping up anti-Islamic fundamentalist frenzy over the "Ground Zero Mosque," this is the direct fruit of your demagoguery. And it's disgusting. Beware the tiger you have starved, frightened, and then unleashed. Beware the genie you have uncorked from its bottle. The ugly side of America is rearing its head and feels emboldened to do so by your demagoguery.
Posts
7 comments:
The Far Right, making drunk people do stupid things since the invention of alchohol.
I sure am glad you lefties never act so irreverent:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4321356
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/51688 (Take note of the last paragraph where he brags about letting his dog defecate on Sarah Palin's lawn... and he wasn't even drunk). Should we blame you for this?
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/6075976/ "The recipient of occasional death threats, Malkin has twice felt the need to move her family to undisclosed locations. “I limit the amount of traveling and speaking that I do, but you just never know,” she says."
Eric - Surely you can see a correlation between the anti-Islamic demagoguery surrounding the 'Ground Zero Mosque' and the uptick in acts of violence against Muslims. These folks who are engaging in this anti-Islamic violence could be self-proclaimed "liberals" as far as I know. But I have no doubt as to the connection between this anti-"Ground Zero Mosque" demagoguery, which is almost exclusively a rightwing project, and these anti-Islamic acts of violence. It seems that what you are insisting on is that there can never be any kind of connection between such demagoguery and individual behavior, because individuals alawys act of their own accord. After all, Sarah Palin isn't holding these folks' hands and making them commit the violence, are they? That strikes me as contrary to whatever social science we can employ to try to draw connections between rhetoric and behavior. It also strikes me as contrary to common sense. Of course, what leaders say about topics influences how followers, adherents, and even people simply caught up in the rhetoric of the moment behave.
Now as to your specific examples of "irreverence" among liberals, I would only have this to say, and I think it is a critically important distinction: all of those examples are individuals misbehaving in the context of their own hatreds and animosities. I would argue that they are not being led by a coherent movement whose purpose is to stoke a kind of general outrage grounded in a kind of irrational fear that leads to a lynchmob kind of frenzy against an entire religion, ethnicity, or cultural association. Surely you can see the difference between some anti-Malkin wacko who threatens her and her family, with the demagoguery behind the anti-"Ground Zero Mosque" movement leadership?
A more appropriate example on my side of what I'm getting at (and what I'm criticizing) would be a kind of Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson mobilization whose intention is to stoke some kind of broad societal outrage over some perceived racial grievance that then gets manifested in some counter examples of violence. If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson descended on a place where a racial incident in the south occurred and succeeded in stoking national passions such that there was an uptick in groups of black folk harassing and engaging in violence against white folks who had strong southern accents, I'd be equally as critical because it would represent the same kind of demagoguery. That's quite different than the incidents of "irreverence" you point to.
"It seems that what you are insisting on is that there can never be any kind of connection between such demagoguery and individual behavior, because individuals alawys act of their own accord."
No, I just don't think you have offered any kind of proof that criticism of the mosque project has been so over the top that it contributed to leading otherwise reasonable people to go off the deep end and commit violent acts against Muslims. What I am insisting is that there would be people reacting violently to Muslims building a mosque close to the 9/11 site even if the story were ONLY reported by Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews and nobody else. You seem to think that without conservative punditry there would be a shortage of people in this country who don't like Muslims, don't trust their intentions, don't want them to be socially accepted, and don't pay close attention to what they are doing.
And even when conservative pundits (and politicians, and families of 9/11 victims, and even some prominent Muslim organizations) are critical of the mosque and ask questions about the people behind it, that is not the kind of behavior that leads normal people to commit acts of violence. And if we are talking about the actions of emotionally disturbed people, then you can't logically hold others responsible for what they do, especially if they never directed them to do violence in the first place. Even Charles Manson, a crazy person who was a master at manipulating other crazy people, had to specifically tell his followers to kill people in order to be held responsible for their actions.
And to the extent that pundits are making comments that get people riled up, it's not based on religious bigotry so much as honest surprise and outrage. A whole lot of the controversy would have been avoided had Feisal Rauf simply been willing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group. The fact that he wouldn't/won't raises red flags for many reasonable Americans. But I'm not sure there is any way for conservative pundits to ask those types of questions in ways that you don't consider inciteful, but that doens't mean they shouldn't be asked. Now, when Palin starts twittering about how we need to go burn down every mosque that doesn't specifically condemn Hamas, you'll have my support. Until then, I think you are engaging in every bit as much hyperbole on this issue as you accuse conservatives of engaging in.
And for the 150th time, just for the record, I don't even CARE if they build the mosque or not. I wish this whole discussion would have just taken place in New York and not all across America, but I don't think for a minute that Sarah Palin is any more responsible for violence against Muslims than you are responsible for the guy letting his dog poop in Palin's yard. We are all victims of our own weaknesses to the exact extent we allow them drive our actions. Blaming others for that is like blaming Tiger Wood's wife for his philandering behavior.
Ugh... I worked up a long reply to this and somehow lost it when I tried to post. I will attempt to recap:
"It seems that what you are insisting on is that there can never be any kind of connection between such demagoguery and individual behavior, because individuals alawys act of their own accord."
No, I just dont' think you have offered any kind of proof that such a connection exists here. What I am insisting on is that even if the mosque was only reported by Rachael Maddow and Chris Mathews and nobody else, there would still be people acting out against Muslims in atrocious and criminal ways over it. You seem to think that if weren't for conservative punditry, we'd have a shortage of people in this country who don't like Muslims, don't trust their intentions, don't want them to be accepted as part of normal society, and don't pay close attention to what they are doing.
And even when conservative pundits (and elected officials, and family members of 9/11 victims, and even some Muslim organizations) do speak critically of the mosque and question the intentions of the people behind it, that is not the same as inciting violence. Even Charles Manson, a crazy person who was a master at manipulating other crazy people, had to directly order his followers to commit murders before he could be held responsible for their actions. When Sarah Palin starts issuing tweets instructing people to burn down mosques if their followers aren't willing to call Hamas a terrorist organization, then I'm with you. Until then, being highly critical of people and organizations who refuse to call Hamas a terror group is fair game, because many rational people believe that is a suspicious position to hold, regardless of your religion.
Finally, I wanted to reiterate that personally I DO NOT CARE if they build the mosque or not, and I wish the whole conversation would have stayed in NYC instead of spilling over into a national debate. But people (at least the people you have mentioned so far) who are critical of the mosque are no more responsible for violence against Muslims than your negative talk about Sarah Palin is responsible for the guy who let his dog go doodie in her yard. We are all victims of our own prejuduices and weaknesses to the exact extent that we allow ourselves to act on them. Blaming others for it is like blaming Tiger Wood's wife for his philandering ways.
Good points, Eric. I'll have to chew on them a bit to respond. And I'm out the door in a minute and don't want to rush my reply. For some reason, I did get your original longer reply, which came to me via email notification of comments posted on the site. Not sure why it didn't post on the comments screen (and I had problems myself posting my previous comment), but I did get it. Back soon.
So, I waited all week to ask but it is still bugging me... did the demagoguery over Global Warming (where Al Gore himself has publicly encouraged people to exaggerate the effects and consequences if doing so can get results) contribute towards the drama at the Discovery Channel HQ last week, or was that just a crazy person being crazy?
Eric, sorry I never got back to this. I intended to and then just got sidetracked. So, I'm glad you posted a follow-up to remind me.
First, going back to your original comments, I have to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a direct connection between the rantings of Beck and Palin and the anti-Islamic fundamentalist frenzy over the ground zero mosque. It is true that neither Palin nor Beck nor Gingrich have actually exhorted folks to directly attack the idea of the mosque; but I don't think it is that much of a stretch from a common sense perspective to see that when a person of prominence and influence describes the ground zero mosque as a dagger in the heart of America, this language is inciteful. Augusto Pinochet may never have said directly to his minions that torturing and disappearing people is acceptable policy; but when he claims that the cancer of communism needs to be cut from the body politic, it is a sign interpreted by many that torturing communists/socialists/leftists is not going to be opposed by the regime. This leads me to your most recent question:
Yes, Al Gore's heightening of the global warming phenomenon is meant to spur action on the issue. So I wouldn't deny that this kook thought his actions were justified by global warming alarmism, some of which is put out there by Al Gore. Just like I think Sarah Palin's comments on the Ground Zero Mosque is meant to spur action on the issue. Here's the nuance: The kind of action taken by adherents to a cause is, I believe, connected to the specific kind of rhetoric employed by the leading advocates and exemplars of the cause. So I do believe that the "dagger in the heart" rhetoric used by Palin, Gingrich, Beck, et. al., does spur on the frenzied whackos who are only looking for some guidance to strike a "dagger in the heart" back at the perpetrators of the indignity: in this case, the ground zero mosque. If it were only Rachel Maddow or Chris Mathews doing the demagoguing, I think I'd hold them equally responsible in the same way for the actions their demagoguery would incite.
Post a Comment