Right-wing fueling extremism
I just wrote on the increase in overt signs of extremism being a symptom of a shift in right-wing ideology – specifically toward a Christian theocracy, heavily armed and prepared to face the enemy. I also ended up being called on for making sweeping generalizations on that issue. After revisiting the post, and considering the feedback, I realized that I was a little bit unclear.
My contentions that The Family is an organization to be wary of definitely stand. The Framers were right that government and religious organizations are not meant to be mixed – they just happened to call it “church and state” because those were the terms of the time. Times change, but their intent doesn’t.
As for the right-wing in general being the root of quite a bit of the extremism today, I still stand by that, but with some clarification. This situation isn’t about quantity, but quality. There may, or there may not be more members of various extremist organizations out there – may or not be more extremists in general. But their numbers are not the issue I’m trying to address. There are more situations involving extreme behaviors against the government in general. There is a general sentiment that certain leaders are not deserving of any respect – and I mean beyond the point of simply disagreeing with them. From the left-wing, it’s usually a situation of marginalizing those that disagree – the term “batshit” is commonly used. But there is a bit more than that coming from the right-wing.
Yesterday on RedState.com, Erick Erickson posted that the left is the true source of extremism. Historically, he is correct that the left-wing typically was guilty of acting out. They still are, however the majority of it is aimed at property damage alone, as opposed to actually harming people. (For that matter, that’s historically the case as well, with few exceptions.)
The right-wing with the calls to kill abortionists and bomb occupied clinics is the hot-bed for encouraging extremist behavior with the specific intent of causing harm to people. And before anyone gets the idea that they should reply back to this with a laundry list of left-wing extremists hell-bent on killing, explicit statements encouraging violence isn’t the only problem. And Erickson’s contention that Stack and Bedell didn’t agree with right-wing ideology is meaningless as well.
The problem is that the long-standing intolerance and hatred being spewed by right-wing talking heads and politicians has desensitized the public. Both sides are guilty of acting inappropriately, but the right-wing is also guilty of staying mostly silent when people that are perceived to be their public voice have run about making racist, sexist, and otherwise hateful comments. Apparently they didn’t learn the lesson from their mothers that you are who you hang with, because they keep crying every time anyone mentions this. You want to have Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc. as your public voice, then you have to take responsibility for it when their actions cause problems.
And those actions are causing problems now. It is creating an atmosphere where the mentally unbalanced can find validation for their fantasies of acting violently against their perceived enemies. Now, I am not pretending to know what went through the minds of Stack or Bedell. I am saying that if a psychiatrist came out with a theory that the constant bombardment of the public with hateful speech and concepts is increasing the probability that there will be more acts of hatred and violence, I’d buy it.
And as for the right-wing trying to duck responsibility on this due to ideological disagreements with the two mentally unbalanced people in question, sorry, but I’m not buying that. Create an environment where it’s just fine and dandy to run about spewing hatred, cry out foul when anyone whispers the concept of taking away guns, and pepper that with the occasional call to violence, and you’re making the perfect situation for people to act out violently – you’re begging for it. Don’t even try crying that you’re not responsible just because the ones that actually do act out violently don’t agree with everything you have to say. They did agree with you – they just picked the hateful statements, and the calls to violence. Didn’t Stack’s child call him a patriot? Isn’t the right-wing always staking claim on patriotism?
And don’t try to blame it on the other side, particularly when the examples you have aren’t splattered all over the press today. They might have been at some point, but they aren’t now. The public’s attention span is short – news becomes old in hours. Your hateful comments are out there today – your activists are in the spotlight now.
You wanted the attention. Deal with it.
Secured by