It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
So writes Paul Krugman about the tragedy in Arizona and our current political climate in The New York Times. My only real criticism of this article is it isn't long enough, the commentary is so useful. In the article, Krugman shows how while the Arizona shooter appears to be a lone-ranger, his action comes in a climate of hate in which threats to lawmakers have skyrocketed.
Right-wing radio talk show hosts are busy defending themselves when they should be full of nothing but sympathy for the victims and their families. This shows a certain selfishness and defensiveness.
Indeed this event has prompted a long-overdue national discussion of the vitriol which has spewed from certain sources. Krugman's article helps clarify the fact that a certain kind of vitriol, especially that suggestive of guns and violence, is coming overwhelmingly from the right, Republicans, and tea partiers. As the author says, we must protect vigorous speech, even when full of energy, mockery and sarcasm. But to advise one's constituents to be "armed and dangerous" as one Rep. Michelle Bachmann recently did is irresponsible in the extreme. It is time to name such for what they are: persons whose comments are completely out-of-bounds and impermissible in Congress or anywhere in civil society.
I'm sure your intent is good, but the Congresswoman's "armed and dangerous" comment was taken out of context by Krugman. She was handing out literature about the cap and trade bill and was advising her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" as they became informed about the legislation. Perhaps it was a poor metaphor, but it was not encouraging her constituents to be violent as Krugman tried to dupe readers into believing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/386308
Your interest in this post is appreciated. One of my hopes for this blog has always been to encourage a thoughtful discussion of important issues. In responding to your comment I went back and looked at the Krugman column I made reference to. I also consulted the blog post you referenced.
ReplyDeleteAfter review, I see no problem with the point Krugman is trying to make, which is that if a Democrat used a phrase such as that used by Ms. Bachmann such a speaker would likely be ostracized by fellow Democrats.
At the same time, I see the point of the writer in your referenced post which is that Bachmann was apparently not referring to weaponry, but rather the facts as in "armed with the facts." It is useful to place things in context.
As soon as I am able I want to get an independent source for the Bachmann quote as I do not see it sourced by J. Gordon in his post. At this point I can only take it on faith that the writer has the story straight.
I do find the phrase "armed and dangerous" to be a bit too colloquial coming from a U.S. Representative. Regrettably this is now common among politicians of both major parties. And we now know that although you and I would not take her advice literally, there are people who, when reading such a statement, might do just that.
The only other point I care to make at this time is regarding Gordon's phrase: "...he shamelessly used a tragedy to smear his political opponents,...." This makes it seem that Krugman is a politician when in fact he is writing as a journalist and as a member of the free press in his role as a watchdog of the public trust. Any politician's statement can be criticized by anyone, particularly when not libelous. Then the critic's statement can likewise be criticized. Following this the original critic has a right to respond. (See the letters of "The Patriot" [Thomas Paine] and "Cato.") This is what democracy is all about and what the Founding Fathers intended to happen in the new nation.
Perhaps I will have more to say later on this very important topic. For now, thank you again for participating in my blog.
*********
Here is the relevant quote from Paul Krugman's article: 'It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.'