The GOP's Misplaced Rage

[Mokele]

Saying I shouldn't support the GOP because of WW2-era McCarthyism is an example of demonizing. Saying that I shouldn't support the conservative movement because some conservatives are radical in their beliefs is an example of demonizing. And this thread is all about lynching, in my opinion. You feel differently, more power to you. I don't need to label your opinion "incredible bias" in order to express my own.

 

No, it isn't. Not even close. And trying to call it that is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

The above examples *are* poor arguements, but are not true demonization. Demonization is making your opponent 'less than human' or some sort of heniously evil force out to destroy 'us'. Think of the phrase "real America/ns", and how often it's cropped up.

 

Saying you shouldn't support a party because of past conduct or because of the views of a large segment of its members are not demonization, because the arguements are not about that group being somehow intrinsically evil.

 

but even if what you say is true -- so what? Like I said, you gonna get a rope or just stand there and complain? Yeah okay, some people on the right are a bunch of vicious, conniving sons of whores. What else is new? Yeah okay, there's more than one reason why the center bailed to Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

 

When has anyone, either here or elsewhere, suggested violent retribution? And why are the only choices "get the rope" or "stand by and whine"? What about, oh, say, calling the hate-mongers on their BS, publicly? What about demanding sources rather than accepting bald-faced lies? That's *why* liberals love Jon Stewart, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow - not because of "hard-hitting news", but because they'll so often call conservative pundits on their BS and expose their hateful natures, while the rest of the media abdicates their responsibility and just lets it slide.

[bascule]

Regarding the previous three posts above, I'll give it some thought, but even if what you say is true -- so what?

 

These people are injecting disinformation alongside unsubstantiated invective and vitriol into the public discourse. What they're saying should be denounced by anyone wishing to have a reasonable debate on the issues.

 

Above all else whenever complaints are made about these people the response should not be "the left is just as bad". You do this to a certain extent but I've seen far more stringent reactions from others (who admonished the town hall crashing theatrics by noting a few case instances of Democrats doing shady things at town halls)

[iNow]

Saying I shouldn't support the GOP because of WW2-era McCarthyism is an example of demonizing.

Well, no. Actually, it's not, but nobody is saying that anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[Pangloss]

The above examples *are* poor arguements, but are not true demonization.

 

Ok. (shrug) You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

You guys asked earlier for examples of the left being as over-the-top as the right.

- Anti-war protests becoming riots

- Anti-corporation/globalization protests becoming riots

- Attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter (accusations of incest, etc, in the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and similar high-profile liberal sites)

- Air America airing extreme retributive/violence-suggesting callers is no different from Rush Limbaugh doing the same

- The Weathermen/Weather Underground

- Environmental activists who engage in violent activity

- Animal Rights activists who engage in violent activity

- Comparisons of Bush to Adolf Hitler, etc, quite common during the Bush administration

 

I'm not suggesting that everyone on the left supports these things, but the same holds true for the right (I know none of you were suggesting that every conservative advocates violence, and I'm not suggesting that that's true of the left either).

 

I think this is sufficient to repeat my point that the far left can be just as whacky and violent as the far right when it wants to be.

 

Yes, partisanship and ugly, indecent behavior is equal on both sides. Absolutely.

 

Yes, absolutely.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Ok. (shrug)

 

<...>

 

I think this is sufficient to repeat my point that the far left can be just as whacky and violent as the far right when it wants to be.

 

Aren't you always the one lambasting guys like Bascule and I, repeatedly putting forth empty maxims like, "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Why are you digging your heels in here? The fact that those you describe as "left" or whom you describe as "liberals" also engage in non-productive behaviors in no way, shape, or form changes the fact that the vast majority of the rage being expressed right now by the GOP is misplaced, and quite simply based on bullshit and ridiculous ignorance of reality.

[Mokele]

Yes, the left can be wacky, and *rarely* violent.

 

The issue isn't the incidents, it's their relative frequency, the number of viewers/supporters of chronic offenders, and the degree to which it's representative of the broader party.

 

It's silly to compare a handful of incidents and a few comments on Air America (which has so few listeners it's perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy) to venom-spewers like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily with millions of viewers.

 

When was the last time the official, elected head of the Democratic party apologized to someone from Earth First or the Weathermen for daring to suggest their views were not the end-all-be-all of the party platform?

 

How many people have bought copies of *any* supposedly demonizing book by liberals? Now what are the total sales of Ann Coulter's books?

 

How many times have you seen someone from Animal Liberation Front invited onto a major news program as a representative of the liberal viewpoint? How many times has someone like Michael Savage been on?

 

That the same behavior occurs in individuals of both sides is irrelevant - what matters is the frequency, how accepted and popular it is, how much these individuals represent the party platform.

 

Oh, and by the way, here's some hard numbers:

 

9 dead, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings, 153 assaults, 383 death threats, 655 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").

 

That's what the republic party has wrought on the issue of abortion alone.

 

Show me an equal level of violence used to advance an official plank of the Democratic party's platform.

[Pangloss]

The fact that those you describe as "left" or whom you describe as "liberals" also engage in non-productive behaviors in no way, shape, or form changes the fact that the vast majority of the rage being expressed right now by the GOP is misplaced, and quite simply based on bullshit and ridiculous ignorance of reality.

 

I didn't say that it did.

 

 

The issue isn't the incidents, it's their relative frequency, the number of viewers/supporters of chronic offenders, and the degree to which it's representative of the broader party.

 

I respect your opinion on it but I fail to see how this justifies an overall condemnation of the major Republican and/or conservative movements of the last half century, which seems to be yours, Bascule's and The Bear Key's point. Bad people in charge of good ideas is an equally plausible explanation (at least with regard to the efforts that we agree that they failed on).

 

 

 

9 dead, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings, 153 assaults, 383 death threats, 655 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").

 

That's what the republic party has wrought on the issue of abortion alone.

 

First of all, the Republican Party has not "wrought" attacks on abortion clinics. It has condemned them, and not supported or elevated them in any way that I'm aware of.

 

Second, none of the conservative talk radio hosts that I'm aware of advocate violence either. (So that's two tiers of alleged leadership down.)

 

Third, no major religious organizations advocate violence either. (That's three tiers. How far down do we have to go, here?)

 

Fourth, and perhaps most important, violent actions are not an indication of ideological fault. That's right, I just said that just because someone commits a violent act doesn't mean that the underlying belief they held, the one that incongruously prompted them to commit violence, was wrong. And you don't believe that either. You wouldn't tell me that there shouldn't be any gay marriage in this country because a gay marriage proponent attacked a gay marriage opponent. No, you'd condemn his action and cast him as someone outside of the mainstream movement.

 

So how do you justify using the bombing of abortion clinics, actions clearly taken by individuals who were not part of the mainstream conservative movement, as evidence for condemning the entire conservative movement?

Edited August 22, 2009 by Pangloss

[The Bear's Key]

You guys asked earlier for examples of the left being as over-the-top as the right.

- Anti-war protests becoming riots

- Anti-corporation/globalization protests becoming riots

- Attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter (accusations of incest, etc, in the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and similar high-profile liberal sites)

- Air America airing extreme retributive/violence-suggesting callers is no different from Rush Limbaugh doing the same

- The Weathermen/Weather Underground

- Environmental activists who engage in violent activity

- Animal Rights activists who engage in violent activity

- Comparisons of Bush to Adolf Hitler, etc, quite common during the Bush administration

In my last post I had meant the leadership, and not the citizens. My apologies for not being more clear on that.

 

Nearly a third way in the post, you might notice the clues: "24/7 sweet-laced rhetoric", "ulterior motives", "Is it just bait for the suckered voters?"

 

I respect your opinion on it but I fail to see how this justifies an overall condemnation of the major Republican and/or conservative movements of the last half century, which seems to be yours, Bascule's and The Bear Key's point.

........

So how do you justify using the bombing of abortion clinics, actions clearly taken by individuals who were not part of the mainstream conservative movement, as evidence for condemning the entire conservative movement?

Again, just the politicians, not the citizens is what I'm addressing.

 

 

Bad people in charge of good ideas is an equally plausible explanation...

Nailed the head

 

And sometimes it's even purposeful that bad people end up in charge of good ideas.

[Mokele]

I respect your opinion on it but I fail to see how this justifies an overall condemnation of the major Republican and/or conservative movements of the last half century, which seems to be yours, Bascule's and The Bear Key's point. Bad people in charge of good ideas is an equally plausible explanation (at least with regard to the efforts that we agree that they failed on).

 

Actually, I don't extend it back that far. I'd only go back the past twenty years or so, maybe less.

 

First of all, the Republican Party has not "wrought" attacks on abortion clinics. It has condemned them, and not supported or elevated them in any way that I'm aware of.

 

Bullshit. Everyone denies violence when it happens, but then they go right back to promoting it, right back to throwing around words like "holocaust" and "genocide" to whip their constituents up into a fury, right back to demonizing the opposition, right back to their supposely righteous fury.

 

You cannot simultaneous demonize your opponent using the language of a holy war and then turn around and act surprised when someone acts in accordance with the views you express. Simple as that.

 

Second, none of the conservative talk radio hosts that I'm aware of advocate violence either.

 

Yeah, it's not like one the the currently most popular conservative pundits joked about poisoning a sitting senator.

 

Or another popular conservative pundit with millions of viewers/reader "joked" about poisoning the liberal members of the Supreme Court specifically to get RvW overturned.

 

These are just what I turned up off the top of my head plus 30 seconds of googling.

 

Furthermore, there is a powerful trend towards "eliminationist rhetoric" from conservatives, especially the pundits. Even without explicit statements of "Go here, kill this person", a constant stream of invective about how a certain group is "ruining America" or "undermining our values" etc. has exactly the same effect.

 

Third, no major religious organizations advocate violence either. (That's three tiers. How far down do we have to go, here?)

 

Really? Is that why Operation Rescue publicly posts the names, home addresses, phone numbers, location of children's schools, etc. of abortion providers?

 

Fourth, and perhaps most important, violent actions are not an indication of ideological fault.

 

That's not the point. This topic is not about who is right or wrong. It's about the demonstrably false assertion that one side (regardless of correctness) doesn't continually uses a much, much higher volume and level of invective and demonization than the other.

 

So how do you justify using the bombing of abortion clinics, actions clearly taken by individuals who were not part of the mainstream conservative movement, as evidence for condemning the entire conservative movement?

 

No True Scotsman. These are not isolated loons - they are simply the tail end of a continuum of people who have been continually fed a stream of demonization and 'holy war' rhetoric by official spokespeople for a major political party.

 

Can PETA be held responsible when those who associate with it do to violent extremes? Yes, for the same reason - they have an official position, constantly demonize the opposition, couching it in terms like 'genocide' and 'holocaust', and then act surprised when someone who's been fed this rhetoric acts on it. Sure, maybe they were 'kinda fringe', or mentally ill, but all that did was allow them to actually practice what the leaders preached, to follow the rhetoric to its logical conclusions.

 

 

 

Look, stop making excuses, sit down, and really think about this. Watch/read Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. Now watch/read Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Al Franken.

 

Sit back and listen to not just what's being said. Listen to how they say it. And consider the fact that if a viewpoint was truly fringe, if enough people didn't agree and enjoy listening to / reading this stuff, it wouldn't have a market. Listen to the call-ins.

 

 

 

Can you, after all of that, seriously look me in the (virtual) eye and say that both parties use a tone that is just as venomous, use it just as frequently, and find this tone just as accepted by large segments of the public?

[bascule]

It's silly to compare a handful of incidents and a few comments on Air America (which has so few listeners it's perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy) to venom-spewers like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily with millions of viewers.

 

Even Bill O'Reilly conceded the issue that it's silly to compare Air America to the likes of right-wing talk radio:

 

-wOpbUgAwBE

[The Bear's Key]

Again, just the politicians, not the citizens is what I'm addressing.

 

...who have been continually fed a stream of demonization and 'holy war' rhetoric by official spokespeople for a major political party.

Yeah, I should include the politicians' outreach allies/groups, schemes, and media as part of what I'm addressing, too. So I will. Let it be done

 

 

Yeah, it's not like one the the currently most popular conservative pundits joked about poisoning a sitting senator.

 

Or another popular conservative pundit with millions of viewers/reader "joked" about poisoning the liberal members of the Supreme Court specifically to get RvW overturned.

A common one...

 

-- Just kill/nuke 'em all let God sort it out.

 

 

Themes by Pat Robertson...

 

-- For the termites [people] who are destroying the institutions and traditions of Christians, the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.

 

-- Political assassinations recommended

 

And quoting Pat Robertson directly ...

 

"I read your book. When you get through, you say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom [i.e. Washington, DC], I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up." I mean, is it as bad as you say?"

 

 

That's him to the book author of "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers National Security".

 

And it's not the only time I heard a conservative pundit saying it'd be good to nuke it for purposes of starting over as a nation.

 

 

Look, stop making excuses, sit down, and really think about this. Watch/read Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. Now watch/read Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Al Franken.

.....

Can you, after all of that, seriously look me in the (virtual) eye and say that both parties use a tone that is just as venomous, use it just as frequently, and find this tone just as accepted by large segments of the public?

One side relies more on humor as a tool, while the other uses (rehearsed) anger a bit more.

Edited August 22, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[Pangloss]

In my last post I had meant the leadership, and not the citizens. My apologies for not being more clear on that.

 

Got it. I think we did kinda range over the map a good ways. No biggie.

 

 

And sometimes it's even purposeful that bad people end up in charge of good ideas.

 

(chuckle) True enough.

 

 

That's what the republic party has wrought on the issue of abortion alone.

First of all' date=' the Republican Party has not "wrought" attacks on abortion clinics. It has condemned them, and not supported or elevated them in any way that I'm aware of.

[/quote']

Bullshit. Everyone denies violence when it happens, but then they go right back to promoting it, right back to throwing around words like "holocaust" and "genocide" to whip their constituents up into a fury, right back to demonizing the opposition, right back to their supposely righteous fury.

 

You cannot simultaneous demonize your opponent using the language of a holy war and then turn around and act surprised when someone acts in accordance with the views you express. Simple as that.

...

Yeah, it's not like one the the currently most popular conservative pundits joked about poisoning a sitting senator.

 

Or another popular conservative pundit with millions of viewers/reader "joked" about poisoning the liberal members of the Supreme Court specifically to get RvW overturned.

 

I wasn't aware of those examples, so I guess sometimes they go to far -- no real surprise there. That doesn't mean the screaming left don't do things that are similar, and just don't get as much publicity because their based is smaller (e.g. Air America). It also doesn't show us a good statistical representation of typical Republican or conservative leadership.

 

They certainly sound ludicrous, but not very serious or organized/planned as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. More like poor choices or gaffs. I've listened to Beck and Limbaugh and others (as you suggest) and they don't promote violence. That's not their shtick.

 

You also said that everyone is anti-violence after violence has happened, but I think it's revealing that your links are both denouncements. From Fox News. BEFORE any violence could occur. This would seem to support the notion that a broad attack on Republican/conservative leadership is overstating the case.

 

 

These are not isolated loons - they are simply the tail end of a continuum of people who have been continually fed a stream of demonization and 'holy war' rhetoric by official spokespeople for a major political party.

 

This cuts to the heart of what is, in my opinion, one of the most heinous memes of ideological partisanship, both left and right, which is that the great unwashed masses, the uncircumcised philistines that make up the uncultured, sub-standard IQ majority of this country, are not responsible for their behavior. They have to be told how to behave. And more importantly, they have to be told what to believe. (And make no mistake about it -- progressive beliefs are no less religious that christian beliefs. Proof and evidence have nothing to do with it.)

 

In my opinion that viewpoint is in error. And it's not one that's proven true by a sequence of straw men, whether it's a victim of sexual preference discrimination "proving" the progressive need for gay marriage, or a dead beautiful little girl "proving" the conservative need for aggressive sex offender legislation.

 

Most people just aren't that stupid. And even when they are, who cares? We obsess way too much on random acts of violence and don't pay nearly enough attention to broad trends and general consensus, which is a lot more positive and upbeat and progressive. Again, just look at what Obama was able to tap into in this country.

 

The red states just aren't as red as you seem to fear.

 

 

Is that why Operation Rescue publicly posts the names, home addresses, phone numbers, location of children's schools, etc. of abortion providers?

 

I agree that that's something to be fought, just as ELF and some of the examples I listed must also be fought. I don't agree that it justifies a broad-based condemning of Republican/conservative causes. You don't hear me condemning Democrats because of ELF. Same thing.

 

 

Can PETA be held responsible when those who associate with it do to violent extremes? Yes, for the same reason - they have an official position, constantly demonize the opposition, couching it in terms like 'genocide' and 'holocaust', and then act surprised when someone who's been fed this rhetoric acts on it. Sure, maybe they were 'kinda fringe', or mentally ill, but all that did was allow them to actually practice what the leaders preached, to follow the rhetoric to its logical conclusions.

 

There's a difference between an act committed by someone who represents a specific group, both personally and officially, and someone who acts on their own who might have been influenced by others.

 

 

I might go along with this, just for the sake of finding common ground:

 

One side relies more on humor as a tool, while the other uses (rehearsed) anger a bit more.

 

Perhaps. I understand what's behind this and agree that it's not entirely without merit.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Pangloss

[Mokele]

That doesn't mean the screaming left don't do things that are similar, and just don't get as much publicity because their based is smaller (e.g. Air America). It also doesn't show us a good statistical representation of typical Republican or conservative leadership.

 

This is Science Forums. Show me evidence. Show me a single major liberal commentator who's called for the death of a sitting Senator or Supreme Court Justice.

 

Remember, I'm part of the far left. The sites I go to make Daily Kos look like Fox News. And I've never seen anything half as venomous as what comes out of every conservative pundit's mouth.

 

It also doesn't show us a good statistical representation of typical Republican or conservative leadership.

 

You're right - it shows a better insight into the typical Republican and leadership than you'd get from most other sources.

 

Remember these people are duly elected spokespeople. Not via conferences and votes, but by dollars and advertising revenue and book sales.

 

If these people and their venom is so un-representative, how do they maintain such huge viewer bases? Why do so many people listen to them? Why do so many people buy their books?

 

The very fact of their popularity is evidence of how widely held their views are.

 

I've listened to Beck and Limbaugh and others (as you suggest) and they don't promote violence. That's not their shtick.

 

Really? You seem to have missed BOTH examples I posted, even though they got national news play in the past year.

 

Or how about the time Michael Savage said if he had a kid who was transgender, he'd beat them until they 'changed'?

 

I'm not even searching for these. This is the stuff I can recall off the top of my head in the past year or so.

 

You also said that everyone is anti-violence after violence has happened, but I think it's revealing that your links are both denouncements. From Fox News. BEFORE any violence could occur. This would seem to support the notion that a broad attack on Republican/conservative leadership is overstating the case.

 

It's called "covering their ass". If they were really appalled by what was said, they'd pull the shows, and never invite those people back on the air.

 

How many of those people even lost viewers over those comments?

 

This cuts to the heart of what is, in my opinion, one of the most heinous memes of ideological partisanship, both left and right, which is that the great unwashed masses, the uncircumcised philistines that make up the uncultured, sub-standard IQ majority of this country, are not responsible for their behavior. They have to be told how to behave. And more importantly, they have to be told what to believe.

 

So, you think nobody is ever influence by anything they hear, ever?

 

Let's be crystal clear - most of these people already *have* some element of these beliefs. What the pundits do is a) tell people what they want to hear, b) amplify it, c) foster a sense of self-righteousness about it, while d) demonizing the opposition.

 

Changing people's minds is hard. Amplifying what they already believe into a sense of 'us vs. them' is trivially easy.

 

I agree that that's something to be fought, just as ELF and some of the examples I listed must also be fought. I don't agree that it justifies a broad-based condemning of Republican/conservative causes. You don't hear me condemning Democrats because of ELF. Same thing

 

Really? Can you show me any evidence of the Republican leadership *actually* condemning Operation Rescue?

[bascule]

That doesn't mean the screaming left don't do things that are similar, and just don't get as much publicity because their based is smaller (e.g. Air America).

 

So here you're basically admitting that the audience for extreme left-wing propaganda is substantially smaller than it is for extreme right-wing propaganda.

 

Michael Savage has the third most widely heard radio broadcast in the United States. The O'Reilly Factor has a larger audience than the CBS Evening News (over 5 million people).

 

You can bluster all you want about the extreme left, but that won't change the fact that extreme right-wing cranks draw huge audiences. Extreme right-wing nutjobs are extremely influential, whereas the extreme left is largely ignored by mainstream liberals.

[Pangloss]

This is Science Forums. Show me evidence. Show me a single major liberal commentator who's called for the death of a sitting Senator or Supreme Court Justice.

 

I don't know of any examples of that specific act.

 

I listed a number of examples of how the left can also support and promote violence, but I agree that it is a valid possibility that more examples of violence exist coming from the right. I have a different opinion about what it means about conservative/Republican leadership if true.

 

 

Remember these people are duly elected spokespeople. Not via conferences and votes, but by dollars and advertising revenue and book sales.

 

Yes, and I don't like what partisans do with their support any more than you do. Whether it's ABO (Anybody But Obama) or ABB (Anybody But Bush), it's the same pointless, unreasoned nonsense. I am no supporter of conservative talk radio.

 

 

The very fact of their popularity is evidence of how widely held their views are.

 

To some extent, yes, but I think you're bootstrapping that to suggest that all leadership of any kind that is right of center advocates the most extreme beliefs and acts (e.g. violence). That's not a logical conclusion.

 

In my opinion, conservatives listen to CTR for the following reasons:

1) Frustration with being told that their conservative values are wrong by the media and progressive left.

2) Anger over the perception that finding reasons for events equates to not supporting personal responsibility (which I agree is compounded rather than resolved by podium-pounding right-wing pundits).

3) Moral disgust over religious issues (similarly compounded on an erroneous basis).

 

Those reasons all have a valid basis, even if the compounding isn't valid. That's why the appropriate kind of dialog is so important. That's why demanding that they recognize how wrong they've been and forcing them to change not only has failed to resolve anything, but it never will.

 

They don't listen to CTR out of a secret desire to see slavery back and gays added to the auction block. And you folks on the left need to get clear on this, because the left's lack of understanding of what these people fear is holding us ALL back from some very good common goals.

 

And I don't see where any of this has anything to do with the Republican party. In my opinion politicians are followers, not leaders.

 

 

I've listened to Beck and Limbaugh and others (as you suggest) and they don't promote violence. That's not their shtick.

 

Really? You seem to have missed BOTH examples I posted, even though they got national news play in the past year.

 

You only gave a few examples out of thousands of hours of air time. That is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that their purpose is to advocate violence, or even that they do so a significant portion of the time. Or that they're all the same, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc.

 

Focus on vitriol and hatred and misinformation, instead of demanding that they all advocate violence, and you will have something that's at least close to being substantive.

 

 

Changing people's minds is hard. Amplifying what they already believe into a sense of 'us vs. them' is trivially easy.

 

I agree with that.

 

 

So here you're basically admitting that the audience for extreme left-wing propaganda is substantially smaller than it is for extreme right-wing propaganda.

 

Not necessarily. Since the mainstream media trends left of center we may be less exposed to eggregious examples of misbehavior from the left. Certainly some on the right think so. But I don't think it particularly matters one way or the other. You and Mokele haven't made the case that the most egregious, heinous examples of boisterous CTR hosts are what shape actual Republican policy decisions. Operation Rescue didn't work for Bill Kristol and PNAC, or represent their views. The fact that President Bush sympathized with abortion opponents doesn't mean he advocated bombing clinics.

 

What I think is that presidential election results for the last 20 years suggest an evenly divided country in terms of general ideology, and that demagogues on both sides have whipped this country into a state in which it seems to believe that compromising with the other side is an impossibility. What I think is that the left shares equal blame for this sorry state of affairs.

 

 

 

You can bluster all you want about the extreme left, but that won't change the fact that extreme right-wing cranks draw huge audiences. Extreme right-wing nutjobs are extremely influential, whereas the extreme left is largely ignored by mainstream liberals.

 

Well it's an interesting opinion, and one that's clearly predicated on a very loose definition of "extreme" when applied to the right, and a very narrow and specific definition when applied to the left. Ditto the word "mainstream". In short, a double standard. So in my view not an accurate reflection of what's happening.

 

Folks, like it or not, conservatives are part of the makeup of this country. Worry less about making them wrong and spend more time listening to their concerns and finding common ground. You'll have a lot more success and a lot less frustration.

[iNow]

I agree that it is a valid possibility that more examples of violence exist coming from the right. I have a different opinion about what it means about conservative/Republican leadership if true.

Can you elaborate on that opinion?

 

 

Whether it's ABO (Anybody But Obama) or ABB (Anybody But Bush), it's the same pointless, unreasoned nonsense.

Well, to be fair, at least angst against Bush is grounded in empirical evidence. You have things like the questionable 2000 election, his reaction/delay during the 9/11 attacks, the lies about WMDs getting us into the Iraq war, the false connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, the pathetic lack of reaction after Katrina, the domestic warrantless wiretapping, the policy helping oil companies, the lack of action on environmental protection, the political firings of members of the justice department, and all of the blatant falsehoods and lies which were told... The list goes on for quite a long while... so it seems strange to me that you would even begin to suggest that a mindset suggesting "Anybody but Bush" is somehow pointless, unreasoned nonsense. It takes a lot of bias and skewed opinion to declare something like that, Pangloss, and you are demonstrating both.

 

 

To some extent, yes, but I think you're bootstrapping that to suggest that all leadership of any kind that is right of center advocates the most extreme beliefs and acts (e.g. violence). That's not a logical conclusion.

That's also not a logically valid description of what anybody in this thread is saying. "All leadership of any kind?"

 

Alhhh... Hello, Mr. Strawman... How have you been, old friend? I see Pangloss has brought you out to play today.

 

 

 

In my opinion, conservatives listen to CTR for the following reasons:

1) Frustration...

2) Anger...

3) Moral disgust...

 

Those reasons all have a valid basis, even if the compounding isn't valid.

Yes, it's valid. Yes, compounding it is dangerous. However, the argument here is about the way those feelings manifest, and the arguments made in their favor. Further, you consistently in these threads argue that these negative emotions like frustration, anger, and moral disgust don't help anybody... how they are poison to political progress... and yet... those very concepts you are here defending... you are sticking up for something against your better principles since you tend to align yourself with the conservative republican base.

 

That just doesn't make sense. You are contradicting your own stated values by offering excuses for this nonsense.

 

 

 

You only gave a few examples out of thousands of hours of air time. That is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that their purpose is to advocate violence, or even that they do so a significant portion of the time. Or that they're all the same, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc.

 

Focus on vitriol and hatred and misinformation, instead of demanding that they all advocate violence, and you will have something that's at least close to being substantive.

I don't understand why you seem to keep missing this point, but I will summarize it again in hopes of finding common ground. These people, with the words they choose and the behaviors they reinforce, encourage violence even if they do not directly advocate it. Their tone and their approach is one which manufacturers frenzied anger, and people then act on this frenzy and... misplaced rage.

 

Nobody has to argue about the purpose of these shows and hosts. Their purpose is wholly irrelevant since it is the behavior, the tone, and the targets on which they focus which are central to the arguments being made in this thread. With such a huge viewer base, those same behaviors, suggestions, tones, and focus on specific targets becomes a self-reinforcing cycle and we have a witch burning mentality across great swaths of the population.

 

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc. may not openly state that creating a witch burning mob mentality is their purpose, but that does not change the fact that a witch burning mob mentality is precisely what their shows result in.

 

Anger and frustration in the populace is valid, and makes sense... but only if it's focused and applied in a manner which seeks to improve things. Can you honestly argue that this rage has been focused, and is being applied/shared in a manner that will improve things? If so, I'd like you to explain for all of us how violence and suggestions of assassination are a valid manner of "improving" discourse.

 

 

 

You and Mokele haven't made the case that the most egregious, heinous examples of boisterous CTR hosts are what shape actual Republican policy decisions.

That's most likely because neither one of them were ever arguing that it did. Policy decisions? Is that what you think this discussion is about?

 

 

What I think is that the left shares equal blame for this sorry state of affairs.

And, you're welcome to your opinion, but it sure doesn't seem very closely aligned with reality when viewed from my perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

Folks, like it or not, conservatives are part of the makeup of this country. Worry less about making them wrong and spend more time listening to their concerns and finding common ground.

Sorry, Pangloss, but I cannot bring myself toward "common ground" with a group of people who are completely hypocritical, crazy as loons, and seemingly incapable of avoiding lies and logical fallacies. Further, one could argue that it is precisely the desire to find common ground with conservatives which has caused them to dig their heels in and go even further to the right during the last several days. Perhaps another day.

 

 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals

Fox News turns into the liberal media by defending protesters, criticizing the president and shoving its values down America's throat.

Edited August 23, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

iNow covered a lot of this, but I think this deserves extra mention:

 

What I think is that presidential election results for the last 20 years suggest an evenly divided country in terms of general ideology, and that demagogues on both sides have whipped this country into a state in which it seems to believe that compromising with the other side is an impossibility. What I think is that the left shares equal blame for this sorry state of affairs.

 

Really? So, how often has Obama tried to reach across the aisle in less than a year? And how often did Bush in 8 years?

 

And it's not the fact that both sides are partisan. It's the fact that group A calls B misguided, while group B calls A traitors and enemies.

 

That's been my primary point here all along - that, everything else aside, there's a major difference in the tone of each side, and platitudes like "each side is just as bad" try to ignore this.

[iNow]

Since the mainstream media trends left of center we may be less exposed to eggregious examples of misbehavior from the left. Certainly some on the right think so.

I just have to acknowledge how grotesquely tired I am of this silly claim. I suppose it's possible that people who like to report on facts and discuss things objectively are more "liberal" and tend "left of center," or perhaps reality has a liberal bias and the "media" are simply reporting on reality, but this old canard about the leftie liberal media needs to be called out for what it is...

 

It is an attempt to displace the topic of conversation and circurmvent the requirement to address criticism of ones points on the merit. It is a distraction... a dog and pony show... an attempt to escape defense of ones position through smoke and mirrors... and it is ridiculously lacking in academic integrity and relevance to pretty much every conversation in which it is raised as an objection or concern. It is a talking point, not a meritorious one.

[bascule]

Well it's an interesting opinion, and one that's clearly predicated on a very loose definition of "extreme" when applied to the right, and a very narrow and specific definition when applied to the left. Ditto the word "mainstream". In short, a double standard. So in my view not an accurate reflection of what's happening

 

You're right, perhaps given their popularity I should regard people like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage as mainstream conservatives. If that's the case, mainstream conservatives are, I dunno, crazy?

 

You are entirely correct there is a double standard. I think most liberals would consider members of the ELF nutjobs, whereas the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage seem to have mainstream conservative support.

 

Oh, and did I mention the sorts of things these people are saying? And audiences of millions are paying attention to and taking to heart?

 

I just have to acknowledge how grotesquely tired I am of this silly claim. I suppose it's possible that people who like to report on facts and discuss things objectively are more "liberal" and tend "left of center," or perhaps reality has a liberal bias and the "media" are simply reporting on reality, but this old canard about the leftie liberal media needs to be called out for what it is...

 

I agree. Considering the obvious right-wing bias of News Corporation and its level of penetration in all forms of mass media, it seems that a considerable portion of the media in America is little more than a right-wing propaganda machine. But wait, they're "fair and balanced"

 

Meanwhile, the likes of CNN juxtaposes sensible liberal moderates against right-wing crackpots, and provides no subsequent analysis, ostensibly out of fear of being labeled "liberal" by, well, I suppose people like Pangloss who self-apply the label of moderate. Liberal says this, conservative says that, end of story, never mind the conservative we interviewed is interjecting blatant factual errors. But were we to point that out the conservatives would call us "biased".

 

I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that "the media" exhibit a liberal bias nowadays. Fox News is a ratings juggernaut. The WSJ seems to care quite little about accuracy in reporting anymore.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Some recent statistics:

 

MSNBC has surpassed CNN in total viewers. I guess CNN's whole attempt to try to be fair and "balanced" for real is blowing up in their face. Partisanship sells.

 

And no where does it sell better than Fox News, who is clobbering both of them in ratings. Glenn Beck draws more viewers in his 5PM slot than CNN and MSNBC do in prime time... COMBINED. Fox is now #2 in prime time, with MSNBC and CNN at #24 and #26 respectively. Ouch.

 

Fox News viewership is up 11% over last year.

 

So let's see... cable news and talk radio are dominated by conservatives. Bill O'Reilly is beating the CBS Evening News for ratings. What media exactly exhibit a liberal bias?

Edited August 24, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

I agree that it is a valid possibility that more examples of violence exist coming from the right. I have a different opinion about what it means about conservative/Republican leadership if true.

Can you elaborate on that opinion?

 

Sure' date=' I feel that there are crazies all over the political map (as I'm sure we all agree). The word "leadership" is being broadly defined in this thread to include not only elected leaders but also talk radio hosts, bloggers, and every manner of demagogue. But there is a wide variety in that group, so it seems illogical to say that just because some "leaders" responds in an unfortunate way that therefore the entirety of Republican/conservative leadership is responsible for a very loosely-defined litany of conservative failures and shortcomings.

 

 

 

Whether it's ABO (Anybody But Obama) or ABB (Anybody But Bush), it's the same pointless, unreasoned nonsense. [/quote']Well, to be fair, at least angst against Bush is grounded in empirical evidence.

 

Not all of it.

 

 

That's also not a logically valid description of what anybody in this thread is saying. "All leadership of any kind?"

 

Perhaps they didn't mean everyone, but Mokele's, bascule's and The Bear Key's point was a general argument against Republican/conservative leadership of the last two decades and more based on a very tenuous chain of reasoning which I felt was worth pointing out.

 

 

you are sticking up for something

 

I'm not defending heinous CTR behavior.

 

 

I don't understand why you seem to keep missing this point, but I will summarize it again in hopes of finding common ground. These people, with the words they choose and the behaviors they reinforce, encourage violence even if they do not directly advocate it. Their tone and their approach is one which manufacturers frenzied anger, and people then act on this frenzy and... misplaced rage.

 

Nobody has to argue about the purpose of these shows and hosts. Their purpose is wholly irrelevant since it is the behavior, the tone, and the targets on which they focus which are central to the arguments being made in this thread. With such a huge viewer base, those same behaviors, suggestions, tones, and focus on specific targets becomes a self-reinforcing cycle and we have a witch burning mentality across great swaths of the population.

 

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc. may not openly state that creating a witch burning mob mentality is their purpose, but that does not change the fact that a witch burning mob mentality is precisely what their shows result in.

 

I disagree. I don't think their approach is good, but I don't think they're responsible for the violent behavior of listeners SO LONG AS they don't cross the line (the one that Mokele indicated by example that they have sometimes crossed). When they keep it in their pants they're fine. I don't like what they do, but they're not responsible for what some idiot does after listening to their show.

 

 

What I think is that the left shares equal blame for this sorry state of affairs.[/quote']Really? So' date=' how often has Obama tried to reach across the aisle in less than a year? And how often did Bush in 8 years?[/quote']

 

I happen to agree with you that Obama has done more to reach across the aisle than Bush did, but that doesn't dispute my point. Bipartisanship in the federal government is just one small part of the "sorry state of affairs" in this country.

 

 

And it's not the fact that both sides are partisan. It's the fact that group A calls B misguided, while group B calls A traitors and enemies.

 

Sure, we don't actually disagree on what the two sides do. The only difference between us is that you see one side as better (or less worse) than the other, and I see them is being relatively equal in weight and causation for the current political state of the country.

 

 

I think most liberals would consider members of the ELF nutjobs, whereas the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage seem to have mainstream conservative support.

 

In my opinion ELF does not validly compare with Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and/or Michael Savage. A valid comparison would be between ELF and abortion clinic bombers. For the three entertainment hosts you mentioned, a valid comparison would be Air America and much of the liberal blogosphere.

 

 

I just have to acknowledge how grotesquely tired I am of this silly claim. I suppose it's possible that people who like to report on facts and discuss things objectively are more "liberal" and tend "left of center' date='" or perhaps reality has a liberal bias and the "media" are simply reporting on reality, but this old canard about the leftie liberal media needs to be called out for what it is... [/quote'']I agree. Considering the obvious right-wing bias of News Corporation and its level of penetration in all forms of mass media, it seems that a considerable portion of the media in America is little more than a right-wing propaganda machine. But wait, they're "fair and balanced"

 

So conservative reporters are biased, and liberal ones are just revealing the truth. Got it. I don't know what I was thinking.

[bascule]

For the three entertainment hosts you mentioned, a valid comparison would be Air America

 

Which has 1/10,000th the audience (and I think that's being generous)? Also, two of them are television personalities (in addition to their radio shows), one so popular that he's beating the CBS Evening News. There is no comparison there. Likewise with Glenn Beck. And I didn't even bother to mention Sean Hannity. There is no one on the left you can point to who has both such extreme views and such a large audience.

 

and much of the liberal blogosphere.

 

The blogs! Yes, those liberals are good at the intarwebs. It's possibly the only medium they succeed in. Possibly because the Internet makes it so easy to link to other sources of information, i.e. supporting your arguments with facts.

 

Newspapers? Magazines? You'll find content on both sides. Everything else? That's the domain of conservatives. They own television and the radio. There is no liberal media bias, certainly not now. Rupert Murdoch singlehandedly made sure of that.

 

I agree. Considering the obvious right-wing bias of News Corporation and its level of penetration in all forms of mass media, it seems that a considerable portion of the media in America is little more than a right-wing propaganda machine. But wait, they're "fair and balanced"

 

So conservative reporters are biased, and liberal ones are just revealing the truth. Got it. I don't know what I was thinking.

 

So you would defend the reporting of the outlets of News Corporation as particularly factual? Do you think Fox News does a good job of reporting the news?

[Pangloss]

Which has 1/10,000th the audience (and I think that's being generous)?

 

I agree that the audience size of liberal talk radio is smaller than the audience size of conservative talk radio.

 

What I disagreed with in that quote was your comparison of ELF to conservative talk radio in terms of which one its relative constituency considers "nut jobs". Most conservatives consider abortion clinic bombers "nut jobs". Most liberals do not consider Air America "nut jobs". When you compare apples to apples, the two sides look about the same. Unless, of course, you happen to be deeply entrenched in one of them and not interested in the true picture.

 

 

Possibly because the Internet makes it so easy to link to other sources of information, i.e. supporting your arguments with facts.

 

Or not.

 

 

They own television and the radio. There is no liberal media bias, certainly not now. Rupert Murdoch singlehandedly made sure of that.

 

Oh please, Newscorp hardly owns every media outlet. Nor are the others so easily characterizable along political lines. But hey, go ahead and make your case -- maybe you can convince me that Vivendi and Viacom are conservative. I mean, everybody knows that Democrats only take campaign contributions from soccer moms and aging hippies, right?

 

I also disagree that liberals can't make a successful media franchise. Jon Stewart has proven that you can produce successful outlets based around a premise of progressive advocacy. Air America just didn't find the right business model, IMO. As we know from presidential election results, the interest is there.

[bascule]

I agree that the audience size of liberal talk radio is smaller than the audience size of conservative talk radio.

 

What about cable news, and cable news outlets with audiences eclipsing network TV in audiences?

 

Most conservatives consider abortion clinic bombers "nut jobs". Most liberals do not consider Air America "nut jobs". When you compare apples to apples, the two sides look about the same.

 

Would most conservatives consider Bill O'Reilly a nutjob? How about Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck? Michael Savage?

 

Yeah, I keep repeating the same names over and over and you continue to ignore them. Perhaps you can address me directly on these four media moguls of conservative insanity.

 

Oh please, Newscorp hardly owns every media outlet.

 

Not what I said dude. But Newscorp's little cable TV channel is #2 in prime time. Not something you can bat an eyelash at exactly there yo. Some might call what you just said (Newscorp hardly owns every media outlet lol!) there a strawman. Please admit that Fox News is a goliath in terms of television ratings, mmkay? That's all I'm saying. Their audiences are rivaling the major networks, in primetime. CNN? MSNBC? Nowhere close. They're an order of magnitude behind Fox in primetime ratings.

[Pangloss]

Mkay, so you've backed off your unsupported assertions that the media is now owned by conservatives and that ELF is comparable to Rush Limbaugh et al. Good for you.

 

You're certainly welcome to believe that the right has a significant advantage over the left in distributing its message through the mass media. I know many conservative partisans who believe the opposite. I don't agree with either you or them -- I think both sides are fully capable of administering their message.

 

The real tragedy is that neither side has figured out that messages like that are the problem, not the solution.

[iNow]

You're certainly welcome to believe that the right has a significant advantage over the left in distributing its message through the mass media. I know many conservative partisans who believe the opposite. I don't agree with either you or them -- I think both sides are fully capable of administering their message.

Again, you appear to missing the central point. This isn't about ability administer message. It's about audience size and receptivity to message, which is especially troubling when one takes a few nanoseconds to evaluate the tone and nature of those messages which are coming out of these groups which have secured such enormous viewership.

 

Nobody is saying that "the left" does not have access to administer their message through tv, radio, or internet, so if you think that's what people are discussing, or that you've somehow defeated their argument, then I encourage you to please take a deep breath and read through this thread again.

 

It's about audience size, receptivity to message, and the troublingly consistent fear inducing tone and fallacious content of those messages.

 

 

 

 

And, btw... A nickel's worth of free advise...

For someone constantly harping on about negativity in messaging and how unproductive it is no matter which side does it, you should look in the mirror once in a while, practice what you preach, and realize that you make people want to punch you in the throat and stab you in the eye when you begin your posts like this:

 

Mkay

, so you've backed off your unsupported assertions that the media is now owned by conservatives and that ELF is comparable to Rush Limbaugh et al.

Good for you

.