Another Op-Ed on the Guns of August
August 23, 2009
Frank Rich of the NYT writes a hard-hitting op-ed on the town hall gun-toters, their political defenders and the violence that is again creeping into the atmosphere of our national political space. Check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23rich.html
Advertisement
45 Comments
Comments are closed.
Ultimately a lot of this worry and hand-wringing comes down to party people who can’t stand the idea that people will notice they are losing an argument (badly).
Ah, yes, demonization of the opposition. I suppose that will always find an appreciative audience in our national political space, whether it’s Mr. Rich or the protesters that are suddenly a threat to the American way of life (now that they disagree with him). This column read like a particularly content-free partisan hack job to me, complete with the so-stale-it’s-moldy linkage-of-everything-to-McVeigh, but, then, that’s how demonization works.
I wish I could interpret this worry as cynically as you do, Magdalena. But I cannot.
I would also add that if your term ‘argument’ refers the Republicans’ success in the health care debate, I do not believe that the verbal energy has been expended therein consists of the level of rationality that could constitute an anything near real argumentation.
Instead, there has been alot of screaming and fear-mongering that have won the day.
John Henry,
Do you believe that citizens armed with visible semiautomatic assault rifles have a place at a venue such as outside a town hall meeting which the president is attending?
Does this ennoble the democratic process or contribute to the well-being of a democratic repuplic?
Again, I repeat: the President of the United States MUST announce that he will no longer appear at such venues in states that allow this to take place legally–not so much for his own protection, but for the protection of these idiots, one of whom IS going to be cut down in a withering hail of secret service gunfire when the inevitable accident occurs.
John Henry,
I’d like you to sit around a table with senior policy people responsible for the safety of the President and make your comments. It might not be as easy to do as when you are typing on your computer.
I’m with Digby on this. I wouldn’t consider carrying one of my guns to a political event. There’s no point. One might as well bring one’s rototiller. It’s equally as useful. But a rototiller won’t send a message that can be construed as a threat. The appropriate place is while hunting, at the range, or when needed for defense, such as hiking where there are cougars. Otherwise one should carry concealed in accordance with local law. I only carry while hiking or hunting.
As an aside, guys like this are a threat to gun ownership. One guy being irresponsible provides fodder for the cameras, and cancels out the millions of responsible gun owners in the minds of many people.
Just to clarify, I don’t think people should carry guns near Presidential appearances either. That doesn’t make Rich’s column a valuable contribution to public discourse.
John Henry,
So what would be a “valuable contribution to the public discourse.” I am sorry but carrying a sign saying “Its time to Water the Tree” and carrying a gun is not valuable at all.
Maybe this is a bit clearer:
“Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.” E.J. Dionne Jr. — Washington Post Op-Ed
I have yet to hear Right Minded politicians calling these so called libertines on the carpet for their clear contradiction of the freedom they triumph.
I have yet to hear Right Minded politicians calling these so called libertines on the carpet for their clear contradiction of the freedom they triumph.
Exactly. Just like they didn’t call McCain-Palin fans to the carpet for their violent and racist chants at their campaign events. They would not want to risk losing the support of their “base.”
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that violence is the lubricant of the political movement that now dominates the right in the United States. The military is glorified, the US is seen as the savior of the world through the barrel of a gun, bad people should be killed, and mass ownership of firearms is a “right” worthy of adulation, irrespective of the death and carnage that arises. Just as their tactics are nihilistic and Leninist, so they seem to endorse the Leninist approach to violence. I have also noticed the violent rhetoric of some of right-wing Catholic bloggers — some of it directed at me.
Well MM,
It seems that you now share a view of the right that I have long had of the left. I believe that they are violent to the core, that they will stop at nothing to impose their vision of political efficiency on us, and that they believe that the “right” to abort children is worth adulation irrespective of the death and carnage that arises. I believe that the left is nihilistic and leninist, and seems to endorse a leninist approach to violence. I’ve noticed that many left wing bloggers have directed their violent rhetoric especially at me and others like me. I’ve had to sit by and listen to the former governor of my state refer to people like me (who have more than 2 children) as the moral equivalent of theives and murders.
So where do we go from here.
I don’t like the gun-toting rhetoric of the right either. But they seem so much safer and more reasonable to me than the alternative.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that violence is the lubricant of the political movement that now dominates the right in the United States.
Indeed, MM. I’d go further: I would actually describe a sizable and growing portion of the right-wing base as transitioning into a sort of proto-fascism. There is the belief in the purification of society through violence, an authoritarian conception of the role of the government, a syncretic blurring between the boundaries of Church and State, the cult of masculinity, the belief in a halcyon past when the nation was “purer”, the disdain for pluralism, and so on.
Ben – A great big “fail” on your attempt at false equivalence.
There hasn’t been a violent left in this country in at least 35 years. Actually more like 40. The SLA were probably the last gasp of any sort of armed revolutionary left in the USA.
It is not that the left isn’t violent, indeed it is the violence of the left that terrifies me. But the left does violence differently than the right. The right is upfront about its violence, It uses guns and soldiers and threatens and kills upfront.
The left hides it’s violent nature. It kills in private, the most defenseless and enlists surrogates. The political left in this country is largely responsible for some 45,000,000 deaths by abortion. That is more blood spilled than all of the casulaties in all of the wars American has been involved with in any way since World War II.
The political left in this country is largely responsible for some 45,000,000 deaths by abortion.
Please. As if there aren’t republicans and right-wing “libertarians” who are pro-choice. Not to mention the fact that the ideology of “CHOICE” is an undeniably RIGHT WING ideology: liberal individualism, the foundation of consumer capitalism AND the pro-abortion stance.
Ben,
Do you favor capital punishment for abortion?
Right wing libertarian choicers may well have the most morally repugnant views on the political spectrum.
I’d be perfectly happy to back and work for some pro-life politicians who would achieve the goal of getting access to quality healthcare for all residents of America. But I’ve never found one. It seems that the pro-lifers are against universal care that those in favor of such care are wedded to the ideology of “choice”, even guys like Bart Stupak, whom I’m sure is a really nice guy, but he has been too willing to subordinate the lives of the unborn to policy goals that just are not as important. And he seems ready to do it again on national healthcare.
As much as I hate the greed and violence rampant on the right, I see more greed and violence on the left. You are correct that the right does not have much interest in solving the problems of poverty in this or any country. But I see too much violence in the solutions the left proposes for these problems.
I am troubled by the imperialism of the American right, but I’m no less troubled by the imperialism of the American left. I’m troubled by the Iraq war, as am I troubled by the expanded Afghan war of the current administration, as I was troubled by the Bosnian wars of Clinton.
Show me a political movement not beholden to the ideology of “choice” and it will gain me as a new adherent. But every leftist movement I’ve ever seen is entangled in an ideology of reproductive freedom that is awash in a river of blood.
Gerald,
No. I don’t favor capital punishment for anything. But I’d like to see some form of serious punishment for abortion that reflects the gravity of the act.
It seems that the pro-lifers are against universal care that those in favor of such care are wedded to the ideology of “choice”…
The ideology of “choice” is actually precisely what is active in the anti-health care reform crowd. The problem is that neither side is consistent. The left claims to value community and to stand up for the “underdog,” and yet its pro-choice stance is rooted in individualistic “choice” ideology. The individualistic “choice” ideology drives just about EVERYTHING on the right hand side of the spectrum, but when it comes to abortion, they make an exception — not because that stance is in any way consistent with what they believe about the human person, but because it is politically helpful for them.
As much as I hate the greed and violence rampant on the right, I see more greed and violence on the left.
This statement is ideologically driven, not based in reality.
I am troubled by the imperialism of the American right, but I’m no less troubled by the imperialism of the American left. I’m troubled by the Iraq war, as am I troubled by the expanded Afghan war of the current administration, as I was troubled by the Bosnian wars of Clinton.
Ah, here we go: problem revealed. For some reason you think Obama is on the “left.” He certainly is not.
Show me a political movement not beholden to the ideology of “choice” and it will gain me as a new adherent. But every leftist movement I’ve ever seen is entangled in an ideology of reproductive freedom that is awash in a river of blood.
Authentic Catholicism is the political movement that you seem to be looking for.
Show me a political movement not beholden to the ideology of “choice” and it will gain me as a new adherent.
Oh, for the love of Mike.
Flip a freaken coin. Involve yourself with something. Standing on the sidelines with your finger up……..in the air, solves nothing. Go to a political party committee meeting. Join an advocacy group. Participate in your union or the Jaycees or your diocesan social action network.
Witness your beliefs but don’t think you have to stand by yourself in moral superiority apart from the rest of the world.
Witness your beliefs but don’t think you have to stand by yourself in moral superiority apart from the rest of the world.
Yes.
“Show me a political movement not beholden to the ideology of “choice” and it will gain me as a new adherent. But every leftist movement I’ve ever seen is entangled in an ideology of reproductive freedom that is awash in a river of blood.
Authentic Catholicism is the political movement that you seem to be looking for.”
YES!
Michael and Kurt,
What makes you think that I’m not involved in my community? I usually spend 2-3 hours per week volunteering. I expect that figure will incease as my children grow and the needs of family are less pressing.
ben,
Then you HAVE found something to become an adherent of that is not beholden to the ideology of “choice.” Problem solved. Why the drama?
Can we please let go of the absurdity that this is some kind of uniquely ‘right wing’ phenomenon?
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/24/0824kibby.html
There’s an actual real live threat, not a grand-standing gun owner.
Neither side has any claim to immunity from this kind of idiocy. It’s just annoying that people act like it’s just now a problem, after 8 years of seas of ‘Kill Bush’ signs that made the lone ‘tree of liberty’ sign look like a hallmark card.
Caveat: I didn’t support Bush and I don’t support carrying guns to presidential events, so please don’t respond by trying to go there.
I just support cool heads and reasonable analysis, both of which clearly lacking on both sides of the spectrum here, including among the VN elites as well as the ‘town hall irregulars’.
RM
“The left hides it’s violent nature. It kills in private, the most defenseless and enlists surrogates. The political left in this country is largely responsible for some 45,000,000 deaths by abortion. That is more blood spilled than all of the casulaties in all of the wars American has been involved with in any way since World War II.”
There is a good reason to draw a legal distinction between “murder” and “abortion”, just as there is good reason to draw a legal distinction between “killing” and “letting die”. The catholic conscience rejects all of these as evil. . . the good samaritan could not let someone die, and we are commanded to do the same. . . but “evil” should not automatically translate into “illegal”. What do conservatives think of “good samaritan” laws in general?
But leaving this aside, this is the problem facing the church: the view that Abortion is the only evil. Until abortion is addressed, it doesn’t matter what else is said or done. The result is that we get catholics supporting an unjust war and torture.
Abortion is evil. It is not the only evil, and to my mind it is the one that is least susceptible to legal remedy.
after 8 years of seas of ‘Kill Bush’ signs
Nonsense. Find 5 examples on the web of a lefty carrying a sign – heck, of a lefty even implicitly threatening violence. Never mind a “sea” of such signs.
The left did nothing comparable to the implicit threats being issued by the right. There is no equivalence; none.
Lefty…..Righty…..Blah, Blah.
Really, this has been completely unproductive. All that has come up is the bashing of extremes. Lets talk in terms of parties (at most) or issues. Even then, speaking in the public square is more complex than Left, Right or Rebublican or Democrat. Do we really think either political party has the solution?
Lost in moderation *sigh*
Here you go Matt. Lots and lots there. Trip down memory lane, no doubt …good times, good times.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos
Michael and Kurt,
What makes you think that I’m not involved in my community?
What makes you think I accused you of not being involved in your community?
Fine, you got me, Robert.
That conceded, there was nothing like the pattern of rhetoric and action on the left that there is on the right. When was the last time the American left made it a point of arming itself and discussing in serious tones anything approaching insurrection, secession, and all the other nutty stuff the right is doing? Nineteen…what…seventy three, maybe? 35 or 40 years ago?
Yes, there were handfuls of individuals on the “left” who carried signs that said “kill Bush” and whatnot. These do not constitute a movement bent on assassination. Nor do I recall seeing any assassination attempts in the u.s. that were connected with these folks. What we are seeing now is an open, public movement (not individuals) glorifying gun use and threatening violent insurrection should the Obama administration pass certain policies.
The difference could not be greater.
“Even then, speaking in the public square is more complex than Left, Right or Rebublican or Democrat. Do we really think either political party has the solution?”
I find this completely disingenuous. Yes, the church is above political parties. . . but that wasn’t the tune the right was playing when it was time to elect Bush in 2004. back then, Bush was God’s own candidate and only a pagan/feminist/homosexual/traitor would vote against him.
My uncharitably cynical suspicion is that the catholics who voted for Bush have abandoned the party not because they thought better of their support of a torturer, but because the GOP candidate in 2008 was simply not viable. If the GOP had a chance of winning, conservative catholics would not now be calling for us to “rise above politics”.
The time to put the church first was in 2004. That was the perfect opportunity to not vote.
Matt,
Thank you, but how can you say there was ‘nothing like the pattern of rhetoric’? My goodness, how many of these ‘tree of liberty’ signs have we seen? 1? 2? How many town hall shotuing matches? 4? 5? Look again at that stream of imagery from the Bush years! It’s really just not sensible to claim that somehow things are suddenly so much more curde, violent, hateful, or even common. It’s just that back then we kept being told that they be called ‘patriots’, exercising their ‘rights’ .. now that the protests go the other way we’re told they’re ‘racists, gun nuts, stooges, militia’ and they’re somehow more dangerous.
All I am establishing is that there is no basis for claiming ‘only the right wing nutters’ make threats like this. I agree the ‘left’ has not (seriously) threatened insurrection in some time. I am also quite content that the ‘right’ is not (seriously) doing so now. It is the paranoid partisans and the ambulance chasing media who continue to take these isolated cases and manufacture them into nationwide shadowy conspiracies. For once I agree with MM, the damage is more to do with the media giving these people coverage and airtime.
Michael,
You are quite the paranoid conspiracy theorist. There is no more evidence of a massive, coordinated national ‘movement’ than there was during all those kill Bush protests. Do you any evidence that all these incidents are linked by some orchestrating hand. Yes, some are staged, some are not, some are incited, some are not (EXACTLY the same as the protests against Bush were). I’ve seen nothing to indicate it’s anything more than business as usual (an unpleasant but unavoidable part of what passes for political discourse in the US).
If you have actual evidence of your claims, back it up. If not, go back to listening to Art Bell and watching reruns of the Zapruder film. There is very little actual difference between the way both sides are expressing themselves. Its ugly, crass and stupid, but it’s not uniquely ‘left’ or ‘right’. Pretending otherwise is just denial.
RM
Robert, aren’t you the one who denied that those carrying guns to these protests were mere individuals, not a movement?
The Open Carry movement is well known. They are appearing at presidential events. I’m not sure what other evidence you might need.
And I don’t know who Art Bell is or what Zapruder is.
Phosphorus said in reply to my post:
“I find this completely disingenuous.” and “conservative catholics would not now be calling for us to “rise above politics”.”
Good thing you are the decider. First, if you had read my post futher up on this blog, you would see I am by no means a “conservative”. Second, I was completely serious in my comment about political parties as the great speakers for truth and evil. Sorry, but they are politicians who make compromises for power, not the betterment of people’s lives…regardless of their party. Third, dumping me in a category is exactly what has been wrong with this conversation. Its just too easy to group and dismiss. How charitable of you. Thanks for emphasizing my point. (There is another assumption you made, but I think its irrelevant to the discussion)
Authentic Catholicism is not a political movement.
Lizzy, right you are.
Authentic Catholicism is not a political movement.
Sure it is. It’s not merely a political movement, but it certainly is a political movement.
“Authentic Catholicism is not a political movement.”
If it is not, then politics is non-Catholic. If that is the case, then, I guess I am out of politics.
I think we need to define terms here.
Authentic Catholicism informs our actions in the political sphere. It does not dicate a full and exclusive political programme. While at times in the past under certain local and historical circumstances, political movement Catholicism had merit (the Zentrum in Imperial and Weimer Germany, Catholic Action in anti-clerical Italy and, in France, standing apart from both anti-clericalism and fascistic Action Française) these movements rarely exhibited an undeniable “Authentic Catholicism”, not because they lack merit but because given the fallen nature of man, any mass political movement will be imperfect.
Ultimately, we cannot support a political movement solely under what we know from Divine Revelation. It involves engaging and working with people, empowering them, and accepting the sincerity of the opinions and judgments of others whom we disagree with.
Authentic Catholicism informs our actions in the political sphere. It does not dicate a full and exclusive political programme.
It doesn’t need to “dictate a full and exclusive political programme” in order to be political.
I don’t think there is a “political sphere,” as I don’t divide reality up into political/non-political spheres.
I have a broad view of “politics” that understands the political as involving more than simply the official “political” structures of nation-states, parties, voting. Politics is more, bigger, than that.
Robert: Bringing guns to Obama meetings is sending a message that if Obama “goes too far,” the carriers stand ready to use lethal violence to oppose him and his supporters. There were not lefties bringing guns to Bush meetings. But here’s the thing: many on the left do own guns – we (me, for instance) hunt, we shoot, and so on. We didn’t, however, take guns to appearances of president Bush, because of the implicit threat of violence that would have entailed. Carrying a gun to a meeting is way beyond a nut carrying a sign; it is carrying a means, and showing a willingness, to kill someone should you so choose.
The right uses violent imagery and rhetoric way more often than the left. Compare, say, Little Green Footballs to Daily Kos, if you doubt this.
Michael,
That is why I suggested we define our terms.