Sometimes, I like to jump into shark-infested waters and play around with sharks. Such has been the case with this blog post that I threw some chum into. Note the fundamental disconnect between my comment and the responses that I got. My comment was scrupulously non-partisan, but immediately drew a hailstorm of “Obamabot!” reactions. Here is a brief recap of the rhetoric regarding Obama and his actions:
“slimy Marxist” — ” attempting everything to destroy this nation and its Constitution” — “idiot” — “usurper” — “unrelenting marxist shit heel like the PUS” — “slanderer in chief” — “his anti-American party” — “the socialist wing of the SCOTUS plus” — “the current joke AG Eric Holder” — “his racialist, pro-invasion anti-American bilge” — “his purple shirted thugs in SEIU” — “the ruling junta” — “a COMMUNIST with every intention of destroying this nations free market economy” — “replace the traitors” — “that illegal alien shitpuddle in DC” — “The only ones perpetrating a coup is the regime versus the American people” — “despot” — “like Chavez in Venezuela” — “curtail God given rights” — “obvious domestic enemies as they consistently trash this country, our military, and our constitution” — “if there were a civil revolution against this administration – I’m also sure they would not fire upon the citizens” — “the enemy of social stability” — “ignores the rule of law” — “agent of social disintegration” — “tin pot tyrant” — “a paranoid, narcissistic sociopath” — “he has to use subterfuge and political thuggery” — “tearing down the current society” — “socialist shitholes” — “stated aim is to destroy [the Constitution]” — “an outspoken enemy of this nation” — “overtly racialist invective” — “contempt for the citizens of Arizona” — “MFCSPOSCiC”; I can only infer from the first two letters that this no compliment — “handsome young mulatto” — “Odumbo” — “The bowing and scraping of this puke to our enemies” — “Odipshit”.
I have worked hard to cling to my principles of objectivity, civil discourse, and recognition that no one paradigm of governance fits all our nation’s needs all the time. Besides being wildly inventive, The Center Square is my well chosen moniker. I would gladly rebuke left-wing rhetoric that falls to such a level of invective as all this, but to tell the truth, it isn’t to be found. Yeah, there are some shouts of “Racist!” flung in Rand Paul’s direction and the like. There were some calls that Bush was a traitor for his abuse of military power in the day, and I did speak against those excesses. But only Obama has been subjected to this extreme degree of virulent, racist, paranoid rhetoric.
This feels like a contagion that has spread from the most far-flung radical fringe, to the next ring, or the next couple of rings of society. There does come a point where this sort of attitude destabilizes our constitutional government. I hate thinking this, much less bringing it up, but four of our own presidents have been assassinated, one of those in my lifetime. Reagan was nearly killed. This profession has a higher fatality rate than coal miners, offshore oil rig workers, or soldiers in modern combat. Elsewhere, Indira Ghandi was killed in 1984 — by her own bodyguards, no less — and at least 15 nations worldwide now live under repressive regimes brought in through coups d’etat. History says the worst is possible.
I don’t where the tipping point is. I can’t tell if we are standing safely back from the edge of the precipice, able to enjoy the luxury of listening bemusedly to the rantings of a few fringe fanatics. Or if we are dangling over the edge already, scrambing for a foothold and way back to safe ground. I know it takes only one Booth or Czolgosz, only one Oswald or Hinckley, to buy into this screed and decide to take matters into his own hands.
And you know what? Even dismissing the worst case scenario, I will say this. If this is the new face of the right side of American politics, then all hope for a moderate, centrist governed future is lost for the time being. You can’t talk to people like this. There is no room for information, history, fact, analysis or reason. If these represent the political opposition, of course liberals should utterly disregard them and enact their own agenda without regard for compromise or restraint. That, my very few readers know, is a path I deem very unwise. We need to blend a liberal willingness to use the levers of government to meet our national challenges with a conservative focus on fiscal restraint to be successful in the long run.
But how? How do you work with people such as these???
May 24, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Excellent post my friend. I’m a middle of the road kinda guy, and you confirm what I’ve observed.
The left just can’t be as hateful as the right. Not that hate doesn’t get things done, but it should be based on facts and reality. Not Glenn Beck’s talking points!
May 24, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Did you note one of my later responses? That I felt that “chum throwing” was quite possibly your reason for participation? Your initial response to the core of the post was a red herring comment about that possibility of an assassination idea on the part of some fringe lunatic. I agree that we should allow the electoral response to dictate the completion of this argument. This presented as your argument was specious at the least. Quite provocative, bravo.
As to the left vs the right hatefulness, please check the history of the comments of the left in the media. There was vehemence far beyond this level.
Again, let us let the polls sort this out.
May 25, 2010 at 3:42 am
@ cmblake: My original reason for participation was exactly what I said. I have a deep seated vigilance about military insinuation into civilian affairs, and I believe we are too lax as a nation in that regard. I also have a long history (as any reading of this blog reveals, although I know you’re new to here) of blasting ideology-based excesses, preferring instead reason and throughtful dialogue. I didn’t realize that my comments were chum throwing until your blog readers attacked like sharks.
It would be a sign of good faith in your part to repudiate the excesses of that rhetoric. Your own rhetoric was relatively less bombastic than some of your readers’. So I ask you:
Do you really condone labeling Obama as a “usurper” or “that illegal alien shitpuddle in DC” or a “handsome young mulatto”? Do you think these are factually accurate? Do you think they belie an attitude that Obama’s presidency is illegitmate? Or is it more that his policies are so revolting that there is no limit to the screed that is permissible?
Do you really think that “if there were a civil revolution against this administration – I’m also sure they would not fire upon the citizens” is a worthy sentiment?
Do you really believe that Obama has a “stated aim to destroy [the Constitution]”? I would very much like to see that statement.
As I said, I would (and do) certainly react to the rhetorical excesses of the left the same way. Care to share any examples of “vehemence beyond this level”? You have my promise to post something comparably critical of any such citations. As for letting the polls sort this out: my friend, we did that already. November 2008. He earned four years, fair and square. Let the man govern. Do not be afraid to battle him at the polls in 2012 based on his actual record, if you feel so strongly. The question I have is why the extreme right fringe feels that a gigantic load of fabrication, invective and ridiculous exaggeration is needed to defeat him. Is there concern about an election based on the truth?
May 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm
We could mention Bushitler, ad infinitum. Stalinist purges that never occurred, on and on. As I said in my latest comment, he’s there. I did make a statement as to his dual citizenship making him ineligible, but qualified that he was elected by the greater number of voting citizens therefore he’s the elected pResident.
May 25, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@cmblake: Thank you. That (“Bushitler”) is a great example (which I had not encountered before, but it is out there enough to have earned two entries at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bushitler). UTTERLY unacceptable, and socially destabilizing, and a part of the exact problem I am describing. If I had ever seen a blog using such extremist, vile invective, I would have chastised that as well.
As for the group posting to your blog: Do they really aspire to the same moral standing as the “Bushitler” crowd? They are equally offensive, wrong and unjustified. People who refuse to decry the disgusting rhetoric on your site have no moral authority to decry the same thing from the other side. I have the moral authority to decry both. I am equal opportunity when it comes to this stuff. Really.
Until such rhetorical abominations are purged from our social discourse — yourselves included — we have almost no chance of seeing thoughtful, effective governance. And we have the elevated chance of destabilizing our democracy.
May 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm
And, please, by all means, read my post and the responses! The arguments presented there are very well thought out and specific. The battle rages on! 😆
May 25, 2010 at 12:28 pm
You said…
Exactly my point. Thank you, Grackle. Can (some in) this group drop the pretense that they accept the legitimacy of this presidency? You don’t. Have the courage of your convictions. Just say it.
Your initial accusation in cmblake6’s post was, first of all, inflammatory by design. Secondly, you failed to notice the date and assumed that the implied result of the storyline was by assassination.
If your assumption, in response, was that I favor such actions, then you are mistaken. Further, if you assumed that I favor the US Military to involve itself, then again, you are mistaken. These are fears, not desires.
It must only be by the people’s voice that he is stopped. When 60-70% of the people say “no” and government ignores them, then therein lies the possibilities for radical recourse. As I said, this is my fear and not my desire.
Dude, I accept his legitimacy as president as he was elected under Constitutional Law. I haven’t a clue whether his birth in this country is true or not, but it doesn’t really matter to me at this point.
I do not accept…
The radical appointments, and subsequent approval by a puppet Congress, of unqualified personnel to cabinet posts.
The unconstitutional appointment of various czars given similar powers as cabinet members without congressional approval.
The buying off of members of Congress by promise, accusation and threat.
Encouraging Congress to circumvent Constitutional Law to smash through dangerous and careless legislation for little other purpose than to leave a destructive mark on this country by, and I’m fairly certain of his goals here, economic racism.
The legitimizing of illegal aliens for the sole purpose of winning the next election. (Just wait, this one will most likely become the next step in our undoing.)
The backdoor deals, the blatant lies and manipulation of US law.
But mostly, the attempts to criminalize the people’s rights in his attempts to ignore, destroy and render weakness to the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
He was elected, as far as we know, legally under the same US Constitution that he seeks to ignore, render useless and quite possibly destroy.
THIS is my objection. What you liberals fail to understand is that this president’s reign will end and the next president will rule under the same manner. Your kind will object mightily without considering that it was your kind that allowed it to persist.
You reap what you sow…and the pendulum will swing the other way.
Sadly, we are witnessing our own demise, if we don’t rise up and find a way to stop this nonsense.
May 25, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@ Grackle: “These are fears, not desires.” I appreciate that clarification. I share your fears, as I think is abundantly clear. Whereas you see the fears arising from the actions of the president, I see them arising from extremist rhetoric. Thanks again.
May 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm
It’s cause and effect, don’t you think?
Ignoring the people propagates civil unrest. America has had riot after riot over the last 250 years over the same sort of “wronged” proletariat.
Government, especially, BIG government can not mend the mind set of its public when the proletariat is responsible for funding such a beast.
When does big government overtake the ability of the masses to fund it? Is the objective to rid us of the private sector all together? What then? Soup kitchens, bread lines?
I can only look at where this appears to be heading. Sooner or later another riot of epic proportions is eminent. Why? Well, it’s not like America hasn’t seen a riot on some level every five years on average, because we have.
Under the previous administration, the left feared and violently (Seattle, WTO) protested the notion of one world government. Now they apparently support the very one who is trying to lead us there.
Does any of this make any sense to you?
My fears are that the next riots won’t be local. They will be national and simultaneous and in every city across America.
The Kent State shootings will look like a minor disagreement by comparison.
Look at recent riots in Denmark, France, Greece, etc. to illustrate the human psyche, regardless of left or right wing affiliation. Side with big governemnt as you see fit, but do not blame the citizenry for reacting to government’s mistake in disregarding the will of the people.
May 25, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Well, I wandered over and waded in and plucked out a single line to address – as is my wont when feeling ubloggy.
There are many well thought out posts over there, but the level of venom toward and assumptions about the Administration are pretty heavy. The language is very incendiary as well.
May 26, 2010 at 11:08 am
You gotta love the censorship in this comment section. Well made points go unconfirmed or deleted. Thanks, I guess, for at least acknowledging that I posted once when I posted twice, though your response appears to be at nothing?
Classy, chum, classy, indeed.
May 26, 2010 at 11:10 am
WTF? Sorry, dude. The comments of mine didn’t show up until I posted the above. Not sure what’s going on, now.
Oh, it says they are still awaiting monitor approval.
Gads.
May 26, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Geez, dude, I’m not online 24/7. I approve every comment, every time, as soon as I get here.
May 26, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Here’s another one that might raise some hackles: http://cmblake6.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/so-this-morning/
Wonder what we can get out of that?