Cheerleading Violence
For a long time I’ve struggled with how violence can be justified, and over time I’ve tended to move closer to pacifism, though not to an all out rejection of any and all violence. I quite rightly pass for a peacenik, but I still recognize the particular virtue and heroism of the soldier. My favorite archetypical literary character remains the saintly bad-ass. Think Aragorn. I can respect the standpoint that leans toward violence as a typically just response to evil. I get why others support war, the death penalty, and (though I vehemently disagree) torture. What I cannot respect in the least is enthusiastic cheerleading for violence. I have nothing but disdain for the raising and pounding of fists in anticipation of a war, the gleeful celebration of some alleged terrorist being killed, or the whistling and applauding this evening at the mention of Rick Perry having executed more people than any other governor in modern times. Violence should break the heart, not propel it toward the heights of enthusiasm.
Comments are closed.
Every bit as appalling was Perry’s admission that he never worries about the possibility that an innocent man or woman might be executed. No qualms whatsoever. Just what we need: another hyper-macho Texas governor incapable of reflection and self-doubt.
“We” — to the extent that there is a “we” — will get exactly what “we” deserve.
Which reminds me of the old saw that the wrath of God is simply letting us have our own way.
Instant karma’s gonna gitcha.
I remember watching an early GOP debate last time through. They were whipping the crowd up about their willingness to torture. I think Tancredo was leading the charge. McCain told them that none of them knew what they were talking about and that torture destroys you from the inside quicker than enemies can destroy you from outside and you could hear crickets chirping.
The whole scene made me nauseous. Really.
I recall Ron Paul getting mocked for his anti-war views while Giuliani got a slap on the back for his pro-choice views.
I really like Ron Paul. That Huntsman fellow seems okay too though.
I disagree with his fundamental take on the role of government, but the man’s got principles and acts according to them. Gotta respect that.
This is your Republican party. This is the party of torture. This is the party of war. This is the party where an elected representative can express sympathy with a terrorist who flies plans into buildings to kill people.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party’s record on war, torture and even the death penalty is little if any better. The current administration is a real disapointment on that front as was the Johnson administration.
Unfortunately, Paul, you are correct.
While I disagree with Perry’s defense of capital punishment, I can, as you say, “get” his position. I am not bothered listening to him, here, respond to the question posed. The applause, however, to the fact that Perry has overseen more executions than any other governor — the applause to this fact — is something that I am disappointed that he didn’t correct.
At least these people are honest, unlike the pious violence of Obama. Both are evil, to be sure, but there is mistaking this kind of position from afar.
An example of the ‘pious violence’ would be ?
Any violence done under the appearance or pretense of piety. Obama’s wars are an example of this.
SR
Sam,
I don’t think it is accurate or helpful to refer to “Obama’s wars.” It would have been less inaccurate and less unhelpful to refer to them as “Bush’s wars” before Obama became president, but it still would not have been accurate or helpful. No one person owns a war, not even a president. Even George Bush and Dick Cheney couldn’t have started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a tremendous amount of complicity and support, and imagining that Obama could have just stopped either war without terrible consequences is a fantasy. As for Libya, if one wants to call that a war, it was primarily the British and the French who pushed for intervention.
Also, I don’t believe Obama pretends to act out of piety, nor would I have said that of Bush and Cheney. I would say, though, that starting the war in Afghanistan was wrong, and invading Iraq was very, very wrong.
I would think the failure to conduct justice is just as evil. Does not scripture contain the meaning of justice? “Life for Life”. Did not the two persons die at the feet of St. Peter for lying to the Church? Did not the Holy Spirit of God whip up Samson to cause a war?
I say you people have a thorough weakness of will. An effeminacy of outlook. Life is Hard. You need to get over it.
[tick...tick...tick...]
This remark reminds me of no one so much as Nietzsche, who was also obsessed with effeminacy, and who thoroughly detested the pale Jesus and his “cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang.”
Did not Christ say, “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him?” Did he not also say, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly?”
Nietzsche blamed Paul for the “slave mentaility” of Christianity, not Jesus. And I’ll remind you that Pope John Paul II called Nietzsche one of the most significant religious thinkers of the modern period, and said that his objections to Christianity had to be taken seriously and wrestled with.
I think that Nietzsche’s real quarrel with the injunctions you quote was to the spirit in which some follow them: too often it is “Look at me, I can prove I’m better than you by not resisting your evil deeds.”
Before you hyperventilate, digby, I’m not dismissing Nietzsche at all. He’s arguably the father of 20th Century philosophy, and his insights into the psychology of religion have to be accounted for.
But Nietzsche set up two straw men – the noble but ultimately misguided failure, Jesus, and the venal, effete true founder of Christianity, Paul – and set them against each other. He blamed Paul for everything, but he ultimately held Jesus in contempt, too, for allowing himself to be crucified. And Nietzsche’s criticism of Christian “slave” morality wasn’t just that it created a kind of self-righteous ressentiment, he detested kindness, compassion, self-sacrifice, and forgiveness in themselves as a denial of life and the sources of the slave mentality. Against them, he proposed an ethic of the will to power and the pride of life. Wheeler’s comment above, has a Nietzschean subtext that is unmistakable.
No one here is talking about a failure to conduct justice.
I don’t think I “hyperventilated” at all.
I think it’s possible to “sacrifice” oneself for others, to forgive and to express compassion, and still maintain the “pride of life,” and I bet (from my rather extensive reading of him) that Nietzsche felt the same way, but also felt that the spirit in which one did these things was what was most telling.
He obviously believed that most Christians (excepting, of course, Jesus, whom he did NOT despise and did NOT consider a “loser,” in terms of personal integrity) do these things in a spirit of egoism and resentment of those who are more victorious and whose lives are more beautiful than theirs.
My own experience of “most Christians” tells me that Nietzsche was most perceptive about Christians. He would be; his father was a Lutheran minister.
[Intended as a Response to WLindsay]
Sir, the problem is the audiece’s applause, and to a lesser extent, that their behaviour went uncorrected. Like I said, I am not offended by the existence of pro-capital punishment arguments, nor am I bothered by Perry’s response to the question (even if I do not share his views here). But like Kyle said, violence should come closer to breaking the heart than to propelling it toward the heights of enthusiasm. That is not evident in this clip, and that is a problem. Would you care to admit that?
I’m not particularly bothered by the fact that Perry is pro-capital punishment, although I too disagree with him. What bothered me is that a man who holds life and death in his hands never has doubts about it.
Unfortunately, doubt signifies weakness in our political climate, and yet is not the person who doubts yet acts is stronger than the person who acts from false certainty?
What good is it to nurse a broken heart, while allowing that which broke it to continue unapposed? Nietzsche, or anybody else, is quite right to have contempt for the “feel good” morality of piously self-righteous, but personally uncommitted, on-looker.
So when will we make progress? I suspect when we move beyond feelings of ‘nothing but disdain’ and ‘nausea’ to a heartfelt sorrow for what the purveyors of violence bring upon themselves. After all, cheers and boos are more symptomatic of emotional fickleness. The response of silence so great ‘that crickets could be hear’ is where God’s voice is screaming.
My disdain is for the actions, not for the people, and it’s appropriate, as is heartfelt sorrow.
“The response of silence so great ‘that crickets could be hear’ is where God’s voice is screaming.”
Agreed. I respected Senator McCain’s stand immensely.
As for nausea, it doesn’t strike me as a “feeling” per se.. But, whatever it is, it was certainly not unrelated to sorrow.
I think before judging and condemning the audience, out of charity the best possilbe construction should be put on their applause. Are they applauding the *fact* that people had to be put to death as the result of the processes of the criminal justice system? Or are they applauding Perry for getting a job done?
Several people have said they can understand Perry’s favoring the death penalty. But applauding his carrying out of the death penalty is wrong. But if one favors the death penalty, it must be because he perceives it as accomplishing some good. Giving people the benefit of the doubt, we should assume that they would rather the death penalty were unnecessary, and would be happy to learn that, say, an entire year had passed without anyone having committed a crime deserving (under the law) of the death penalty.
But when people are convicted of crimes deserving of it, people who favor the death penalty want it to be actually carried out, rather than have it dithered over endlessly. Thus they are glad when they hear that executions have been carried out, precisely because doing so, in this country, is relatively rare; endless dithering being far more common (or so they perceive).
So perhaps they are applauding, not the fact that people have been convicted of horrible crimes (which, after all, had victims) and were therefore killed; but the fact that the death penalty, which they understandably favor, has been made effective rather than, as is so often the case (so they perceive), ineffective.
Agellius,
go through your entire post and cross out “capital punishment” and substitute “abortion.” Would you be so sympathetic to an audience that cheered wildly for a politician who was proud of his record promoting abortions?
Yes, we could look for explanations, try to “understand,” but in both cases (the factual one presented above and my hypothetical one) we are confronted with people whose emotional reaction (and therefore more revealing perhaps than their rational response) is to celebrate the culture of death: as the bishops said, the tragic illusion that we can fix our societal problems by violence.
David:
My point is that yes, you can look at it the way you have chosen to. Or, you can try to put a more charitable construction on it.
If it were a pro-abortion crowd, believe it or not, I would try to put their cheering in the best possible light. I think abortion is a horrible crime, but I don’t necessarily judge those who favor it, or who would cheer a pro-abortion politician for helping to procure abortions. They are cheering what they consider a good thing — from their point of view, they would be cheering not the fact that abortions take place, but rather, the upholding of what they consider a basic right.
Yes, believing as we do, we need to try to change their minds about it. But it wouldn’t help the situation for us to publicly condemn them as a bloodlusting mob.
It’s about making distinctions — are they cheering the deaths of infants, or are they cheering the protection of their rights? And in the case of the death penalty, are they cheering the taking of life by the state, or are they cheering the putting into effect of laws which the people have enacted, as opposed to delaying and obstructing them?
Some people are incapable of making such distinctions since their minds only see things in black and white — it’s wrong, therefore any happiness associated with it must be bad. But we who are able to make distinctions should do so, not only when it happens to benefit our side, but also when it benefits our opponents, for the sake of charity and putting the best possible construction on their actions.
“This is the party where an elected representative can express sympathy with a terrorist who flies plans into buildings to kill people.”
@Morning’s Minion This is an outright lie! Please point to one incident of this. The Democrat Party has a penchant for supporting the enemy or our enemies, making excuses for their actions, and defends their so-called rights but when it comes to innocents it is sad that they cannot be afforded the same defense by Democrats.
Rep. Steve King of Iowa expressed sympathy for the man who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX, killing one person and wounded a dozen more:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/02/22/83082/king-justifies-irs-terrorism/
King said if the U.S. had abolished the I.R.S “back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane.” Being sympathetic with reasons why a person may be frustrated with the IRS is NOT the same thing as Morning’s Minion saying this “This is the party where an elected representative can express sympathy with a terrorist who flies plans into buildings to kill people” King did NOT advocate any violence or even say that the violent act that this guy committed was acceptable. Plus this is stated after the claim about “torture” so one could make an inference that Morning’s Minion was referring to something else besides the IRS building incident. But I don’t know what Morning’s Minion was referring to. The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building qualifies more as a lone nut than a terrorist.
“The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building qualifies more as a lone nut than a terrorist.”
Why is it that violence from the right is always dismissed as the work of “a lone nut” and never called terrorism?
Stack wasn’t “from the right.” His manifesto could easily be classified as “from the left”: it was anti-George Bush, anti-religion, anti-Catholic Church, anti-capitalism, and pro-communism.
But I’m not going to call Stack as being “from the left”. He was insane. Period. And I don’t think it’s useful trying to push him into the “liberal” or “conservative” box.
To characterize his suicide note as “anti-Catholic Church” or “pro-communism” is a distortion. He has one aside about the Catholic Church in the context of a long and continuing rant against the IRS. He has one ambiguous reference to communism as part of his “critique” (rant, really) against corporate greed. Overall, the general tenor of his rant comes from the far right, with its emphasis on the IRS, corporate control of the government and the loss of freedom.
I am not equating all of conservatism with Stack’s ranting, but he was clearly grounded on the right.
d
Ranting “against corporate greed” and “corporate control of the government” sound to me like things on the left, but what do I know? And I get that being against the IRS is “right”, but being against Bush and Republican-government is “right” too? Maybe I need a list to keep everything straight. Does it go like this?
anti-corporations = left, and pro-corporations = right
but
anti-corporations controlling government and being greedy = right
loss of freedom = right
but
loss of freedom when talking about the Patriot Act = left
David, my point is that not only is it silly to label insane people, but it’s extremely unhelpful. It’s unhelpful because it undermines civil discussion right from the beginning. Most conservatives or people on the right don’t agree with Stack — and find what he did to be abhorrent — and to group them with Stack undermines a reasonable discussion from the start.
(As for Rep. King, I think his words are definitely imprudent. There is absolutely no excuse for an act of senseless violence. Violence like that should always be condemned without hesitation. So I think Rep. King was wrong to say what he said. But I wouldn’t go so far as MM to say that he was sympathetic to Stack — Teresa is right that King was commenting about the IRS, not about the validity of Stack’s actions. It reminds me a little of the comments of some people “on the left” expressing understanding — and some might say, sympathy — for the motivations of Al-Qaeda when it comes to 9/11. But the fact that King’s comment could be easily be viewed the way MM describes, shows that the comment was very improper. When it comes to acts of senseless violence, one should be very careful when making observations or generalizations, because the acts cannot possibly be justified and deserve no sympathy.)
Thales, look up the history of right-wing populism in America. You will find that it often shared superficial tropes and themes with the left, but could still arguably be classified as being on the right.
My problem in my original post is that Stack is simply being dismissed as “insane” as if that explained (and explained away) everything. It does not. Was he mentally imbalanced? Maybe: I am not a trained mental health professional and I don’t have a lot to go on. My arm chair diagnosis is that he was one taco short of a combo platter, but that does constitute a formal diagnosis. Further, there are degrees of mental illness, and since he did not appear to be talking to a 6 ft tall bunny named Harvey, nor did he intimate that the voices in his head told him to fly into the IRS building, I think it is safer to assume some degree of rationality on his part. And given that, it is reasonable and prudent to inquire into the sources of his obsessions and rhetoric. If it is being fed by a strand on the right in America, then this needs to be recognized.
I do not regard this as ending civil discussion, any more than I would having you calling out someone on the left. I agree that many on the right would find his actions abhorrent, but that does not absolve them of responsibility, if their rhetoric and prejudices find themselves write large in his actions. Legally culpable? No, of course not, under the clear and present danger test. But morally? If I had allies who started turning to violence (as happened to the pro-life movement) I would start reflecting on whether what I was saying was promoting a culture of violence instead of a culture of peace. And yeah, I’m going to call out my political opponents as well as my friends.
David,
Sorry, I don’t understand your first paragraph. Maybe you’re referencing the fact that right-wing themes often mirrors left-wing themes. It’s certainly curious. Consider anti-semitism: in the past, it’s been identified with the right, but today it’s found in some areas of the left. Or individual freedom: it’s a current theme of the Tea Party, but when the topic is the Patriot Act, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, or any morals legislation, it’s a theme of the left. Or anti-big-government: again, a Tea Party theme, but it’s also the theme of the left tending to anarchy, like that of the WTO rioters. Or anti-Iraq War and anti-US military action: certainly, it’s a left theme of pacifism, but then where do you put Ron Paul? Libertarianism has both left and right elements. All of this shows how pointless and unhelpful the right and left labels can be.
I want to make clear that I’m no fan of insults, or of violent or over-the-top rhetoric. I’m firmly against it. Such rhetoric is not conducive to a healthy debate, and there is always the possibility that it gets viewed improperly by a crazy person. I don’t like it on the right and I don’t like it on the left. But I just don’t see that Stark was motivated by today’s right and its rhetoric. He wasn’t motivated by themes of Republican politics, or of the Christian religion, or of traditional moral values, or of corporations, or of the free market (it seems he hated or mistrusted all of these); and instead, he seems to have subscribed to a strange notion of the individual fighting against the government and against corporations that came from some sort of Communistic ideal. And that’s why I don’t think it is useful to force the right to “own” Stark and require them to apologize for him. In a similar way, I don’t think it’s useful to force the left to “own” the Holocaust shooter or the Discovery Channel terrorist. Taking the latter example: environmentalists have legitimate arguments which should be the topic of a civil discussion, and it seems to me that playing “gotcha” by forcing them to “own” the Discovery Channel terrorist and require that they apologize for him isn’t terribly useful in starting that discussion.
Regardless, I recognize the validity of your point: that the right should be careful in its rhetoric, so as to avoid spurring a second Stark. I agree with you on that. I wish I could be a spokesman for the “right,” but I’m not — but if I was, I’d be happy to disclaim any “Obama is Hitler”-type language. It’s not conducive to civil discussion. And I agree with you that if I had allies who started turning to violence, I would start reflecting on whether what I was saying was promoting a culture of violence instead of a culture of peace. But it’s curious since below you seem to be defending the “sons-of-bitches” and the “punish your enemies” rhetoric — language that I don’t think promotes a culture of peace.
It isn’t much better if we edit MM’s original post: “This is your Republican party. This is the party of [rendition and enhanced interrogation]. This is the party of [military action rather than negotiation]. This is the party where an elected representative can express sympathy with [an insane narcissist] who flies [a small aircraft into a government building] to kill people [with expectation that the elected representative will score political points among his base].”
As Thales pointed out, it doesn’t make sense to call Stack a right-wing terrorist, or even any kind of terrorist. However, anti-IRS sentiment is much more characteristic of the Tea Party than it is of the Democratic party or left-leaning thought in general.
The thread topic being “cheerleading violence” and contemporary political discourse, this is on topic. A generation ago, when the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground bombed political targets, Democrats of the time were quick to denounce the violence. Today, it seems Tea Party sympathizers have difficulty even acknowledging the harshness of their rhetoric.
Jesus–speaking about self-defense–said that if his kindgom were of this world, his followers would fight. That’s a big IF, with big implications.
While considering those implications, we might want to include a consideration of whose kingdom this world is. Could it be…oh, I don’t know…SATAN?
I wonder how WLindsay and other Catholics who align with the hard Right in this country reconcile the fact that Pope John Paul II, whom they generally virtually idolize, spoke out against our War in Iraq. But then the refrain from both ends of the political spectrum is to state that whenever they agree with the Pope or the Teachings of the Church, the the pope or the teachings are obviously correct, but when they disagree, then the Pope and The Church are obviously wrong.
What one may consider violence others consider to be justice or a just punishment for their heinous crimes. Is it really wrong to cheer justice?
Yes, it could be wrong to cheer justice: there is a very great difference between the satisfaction that justice has been accomplished and the revenge-tinged emotionalism of cheering that “the bad guy got what he deserves.”
Further, to accept this argument, one would have to concede that the death penalty, either in the abstract or as reified by the state of Texas, represents justice. I won’t concede either. I am willing to discuss the idea that in some ideal situation the death penalty can be administered justly (though I don’t think it can). On the other hand, years of study about the death penalty have convinced me that “the Texas death penalty” and “justice” can never be used in the same sentence. It has epitomized the machinery of death, grinding up the poor and marginalized, and in at least one case (and probably more) killed a man with a very strong case of factual innocence. Strip away the euphemisms and this is what the crowd was cheering.
Teresa:
I find it interesting that you use an icon of St. Teresa as your avatar. A Google search on “teresa of avila justice” or “teresa of avila violence” returns pages full of quotes which make it clear that the saint consistently writes about sin as self-punishment and “violence to yourself“. When she writes about a prioress’s need to act severely, it is to separate a perpetrator and prevent her from infecting her sisters with satan’s spirit of self-inflating behavior. Her justice is the diametric opposite of retributive punishment imposed remorselessly by the state.
The purpose of our criminal justice system is to protect us from each other and allow us to keep our stuff. When the justice system instead tries to administer justice, it often fails and goes against the goal of protecting the population. There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent or reduces crime. There is no evidence that the death penalty can be carried out fairly and without bias. If we are going to allow our government to carry out the ultimate punishment, shouldn’t there be a preponderance of evidence saying it works and can be justly administered before we implement it?
Both of the last two Popes have said they could imagine conditions that would allow the death penalty to be used, but went on to say none of our modern societies have those conditions. They have said as straightforwardly as possible the death penalty is not needed in our modern society. I do not understand how this argument can even continue among Catholics. The facts that the death penalty has not been proven a deterrent and that it has never been implemented justly disqualify it as a reasonable punishment.
The Tea Party is made up of independents, conservatives, libertarians, and even John F. Kennedy Democrats or the Democrats of old, and they do denounce violence when it occurs. This is just one example of the Tea Party leaders denouncing violence – “We the leaders of the Tea Party movement of Florida stand in stark opposition to any person using derogatory characterizations, threats of violence or disparaging terms towards members of Congress or the President,” they wrote. You can see the entire article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/tea-party-leaders-condemn-disown-threats/
The Tea Party aren’t the ones who advocate threats or threatening-type and hateful remarks like Jimmy Hoffa and others on the Democrat side of the aisle have done recently — http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html
The Tea Party has different ideas on how the IRS system of taxation needs to be fixed – fair tax or flat tax are the two main systems of reform they advocate. .
Unfortunately it is the progressives who have used threatening and/or over-the-top language and lobbed false accusations consistently since the Tea Party was born a few years ago. This is all because the Tea Party wants our nation to practice fiscal sanity and promotes personal responsibility.
Teresa,
Any chance you could put back in President’s Hoffa’s words that your link edited out of mid-paragraph? To me, that would be an act of personal responsibility.
It is totally in context even without those words. So, if a Tea Party leader said the same thing about Obama and the labor leaders you would be okay with that? It is over the top rhetoric which has no place in the political discussion. Since Obama called for civility in Arizona the new civility has gone downhill from there and both Democratic pundits and politicians have used uncivil heated rhetoric as the months have gone by. The Tea Party and conservatives have been the civil ones when engaging political issues in this country.
It is totally in context even without those words
So why falsely edit those words out?
In full disclosure, there have been times in my life when I have told persons I want to take them out. It involved theatre tickets and a candlelight dinner at Chez Oeuvrepriced
Allow me to assist. As reported by RealClearPolitics, Hoffa said,
“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong”
As taken from the transcript of his speech in the Detroit Free Press:
“We are going to hear from President Obama in a few minutes, and I am so glad that he has come to Michigan because this is where he sees the real America. He looks out on this army of people and you know what I say? President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. President Obama, we want one thing: Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs…(The crowd joins the chant.)
That’s what we are going to tell America…..When he sees what we are doing here, he will be inspired, but he needs help. And you know what? Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, we keep the eye on the prize, lets take these sons-of-bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.”
The editing has clearly removed significant context and has distorted the meaning Hoffa intended. He is echoing a political theme that organized labor has used since at least Samuel Gompers, who said, “Reward your friends and punish your enemies: vote!”
It is totally in context even without those words. If you aren’t able to see that I feel sorry for you.
So, if a Tea Party leader said the same thing about Obama, the labor leaders, and union members you would be okay with that?
Members in unions such as Longshoreman have been perpetrating violence in this country for the past couple weeks, at the very least.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/apparent_wildcat_longshoreman.html
I am not saying that all or even most of the members of unions are engaged in violence but the rise in violence among union members has grown in the past couple of years. If this is who Hoffa is referring to as “workers” God help us.
It is over the top rhetoric which has no place in the political discussion. Since Obama called for civility in Arizona the new civility has gone dramatically downhill from then on and both Democratic pundits and politicians have used uncivil heated rhetoric as the months have gone by. The Tea Party and conservatives have been the civil ones when engaging political issues in this country.
Teresa, in reply to your comment of 9:16 (doesn’t have a reply button, at least on my browswer):
Before you “feel sorry” for David and the rest of us who see more than a single (conservative) perspective, has it occurred to you that we might see something you’ve missed?
Hoffa’s speech, though rude, was about voting, not perpetrating physical violence. With his reference to voting included in the transcript as it was in David’s version (matching the audio of the link you gave from realclearpolitics.com), this is clear. As redacted by realclearpolitics.com, it appears to be about physically throwing the sob’s out, and the reader (especially one who is eager to think the worst of the labor movement) is left to think Hoffa was instigating phsycical violence, rather than making a rude statement. Rather than showing us an example of how violent the labor movement is, you’ve shown us an example of how the transcript from “realclearpolitics.com” is seriously biased and anything but clear.
Have another look at the Oregon Live link you posted at 9:16. The story describes violence to property and probably criminal behavior, but not violence directed at people. Furthermore, you claim that “violence among union members has grown in the past couple of years.” Where is the evidence for increasing violence? Did they shoot any elected officials or brandish firearms at their opponents’ rallies? If anything, violence against people has decreased in recent decades, if you compare some of the thuggery and intimidation tactics commonly used by labor and management in early decades of the labor movement.
“Since Obama called for civility in Arizona the new civility has gone dramatically downhill from then on and both Democratic pundits and politicians have used uncivil heated rhetoric…” Really? You don’t think uncivil heated rhetoric, cheerleading violence, had anything to do with the vicious attack on Rep. Giffords which was Obama’s reason for speaking out in Arizona?
Please, have a sanity and compassion check. Before you accuse Democrats, union members, Communists or anyone else of over the top rhetoric, take a few moments in prayer — all of us need God’s guidance to see the bigger picture, even if it will never be as big as what God sees. It has taken me many years to accept that God has no “side” in any argument, and ultimately I have no “side” either, for God makes the rain fall on the good and the evil alike.
If a Tea Party member said they wanted to take President Obama out with votes, yes I would be totally ok with that. Many have said that and continue to.
Since I got involved in the discussion on this post, I thought that I should state where I stand. I tend to the “conservative,” “right,” or “tea-party” side on many issues (whatever those labels mean), though on the issue of capital punishment, I’m with the Catholic Church and Evangelium Vitae.
I think Kyle is exactly correct here. Any violence indicates a failure of peace and charity somewhere along the line, and violence necessarily brings suffering, so it should never be cheered. Unjustified violence is always a travesty and should never be defended or encouraged. Justified violence — like killing someone in self-defense, a truly just war or a casualty of war like Bin Laden, or a truly justified instance of capital punishment — though necessary at times, is never a cause for celebration, because it the unfortunate result of some violation to the common good. Justified violence is never good in and of itself. So the cheering during the Perry question was unseemly and improper. It requires a sober attitude. Kyle is right here: “violence should come closer to breaking the heart than to propelling it toward the heights of enthusiasm.”
“violence should come closer to breaking the heart than to propelling it toward the heights of enthusiasm.” That last well-said quote was Kelly’s, not Kyle’s, with whom I also agree.
Sorry about that. Yes, Kelly said that, but as a slight rewording of what I wrote.
And I think you’re both right on!
Frank M,
Didn’t have a reply button either.
“Really? You don’t think uncivil heated rhetoric, cheerleading violence, had anything to do with the vicious attack on Rep. Giffords which was Obama’s reason for speaking out in Arizona?”
Nope. Heated rhetoric doesn’t make a nut act nuts and murder innocent civilians. There is no evidence to back your claim that heated rhetoric was a factor in the shooting. In fact the shooter was shown in a video burning an American flag and talking crazily so the guy wasn’t sane.
“Please, have a sanity and compassion check. Before you accuse Democrats, union members, Communists or anyone else of over the top rhetoric, take a few moments in prayer — all of us need God’s guidance to see the bigger picture, even if it will never be as big as what God sees. It has taken me many years to accept that God has no “side” in any argument, and ultimately I have no “side” either, for God makes the rain fall on the good and the evil alike.”
For you to make assumptions that I need a sanity or a compassion check check is low even for the Vox Nova crowd. For you to ASSSUME such things shows just how uncharitable and uncompassionate and willfully ignorant you are to reality. To assume is to make an ….. and I’ll take a leap and suspect that you’ve heard the rest of the saying but I am not posting foul language on this blog. Keep on having your head in the sand and I will be keep on fighting to save the heart of America from the likes of Hoffa and his gang. I look at both sides of the issue. It is clear that you don’t.
Kurt,
So Jimmy Hoffa wanted to take the Tea Party out for dinner? I like that. I think he should spread both his love and wealth to the Tea Party and treat us to dinner. Or does the phrase “take out” have many meanings? Here are a few examples:
1. To get into one’s possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
2. To grasp with the hands; grip: Take your partner’s hand.
3. To encounter or catch in a particular situation; come upon; discover
4. To deal a blow to; strike or hit
5. To affect favorably or winsomely; charm or captivate
Or does Hoffa’s army have other plans for us sweet, innocent, compassionate, sane American who are promoters of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and freedom?
Teresa,
You have made my point. Thank you. As you so wonderfully document, the phrase “take out” has many meanings. One meaning would be the reverse of “put in.” So if a politican was put into office by an election, he could be taken out of office by a subsequent election. That meaning, of the variety of possible meanings, was suggested by President Hoffa’s statement once the language dishonestly edited out is restored to his statement.
It brings me great joy that you and I are abel to come to agreement that the phrase “take out” has many meanings. God bless you. It is wonderful we can be in concord and agreement. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard of Aaron. Psalm 133
Kurt,
While we’re having our happy little party to celebrate our agreement about the multiple meanings of the phrase Mr. Hoffa used, we can also rejoice about our agreement that when there are many meanings to a word, phrase, or symbol, including a perfectly innocent metaphorical meaning, it is a serious lapse of charity and good judgment to assume the worst about either the intentions of the person communicating the message or those who receive it. I am thinking, of course, of the way innocent words and symbols were connected to the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Teresa wrote:
Kurt,
While we’re having our happy little party to celebrate our agreement about the multiple meanings of the phrase Mr. Hoffa used, we can also rejoice about our agreement that when there are many meanings to a word, phrase, or symbol, including a perfectly innocent metaphorical meaning, it is a serious lapse of charity and good judgment to assume the worst about either the intentions of the person communicating the mess…
Teresa previously wrote:
The Tea Party aren’t the ones who advocate threats or threatening-type and hateful remarks like Jimmy Hoffa…
Teresa, it brings me great joy to see you correct your earlier statements. Yes, when phrases have multiple meanings, it would be the author of the phrase who is the authoritative interpreter.
Thank you and God bless.
To me, it’s the “sons-of-bitches” name-calling that is more problematic than “take someone out.” Military or violent metaphors are common in speech and debate, and aren’t necessarily offensive: eg, “attack an opponent”, “shoot down an argument”, “target a candidate”, “fight”, “battle”, “campaign”, etc. It’s the vulgar name-calling that has no legitimate purpose, and no place in civil discourse.
This.