An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Hate (Guest Voice)

Hate

by Anastasia Pantsios

The timing was uncanny. Before he left on vacation, my editor at the publication I work for wrote this week’s cover story which hit the streets this morning, imploring George Voinovich as a sane — if not exactly as-moderate-as-described — Republican who is retiring and whose office is therefore not vulnerable to attacks from right-wing crazies, to secure his legacy by reclaiming the Republican Party from its wingnut branch.

Then today, yet another lunatic killed in the service of his hatred. Less than two weeks after such a person murdered a doctor in Kansas for the “sin” of performing legal abortions, a man walked into Washington D.C.’s Holocaust Museum and started shooting, killing a security guard.

The former was ostensibly driven by his hatred of women (because that’s what motivates the extreme wing of the anti-abortion movement); the other supposedly by animosity toward Jews. But the background of both these individuals shows that their hostility and rage was not focused on a single specific group: It was generalized and consuming, fueled by off-the-wall conspiracy theories. They hated a LOT of people, and ultimately, they were killing for their right to hate someone —anyone — that they could blame for their alienation. Women, Jews, gays, Hispanics, Muslims — whoever.

This demonization of the “other” — anyone who is not a straight, white, Christian male with a conservative political philosophy — has swept through the ranks of right-wing commentators, bloggers and columnists over the last few years, who have amplified it with their mighty microphones. Sadly, it’s been enabled by far too many Republican politicians, who cozy up to, or make excuses for, these haters.

The “balanced” mainstream media has often tried to make a case that there are extremists “on the right and the left.” But they struggle to come up with anyone on the left equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly. You just can’t produce evidence that Michael Moore or Al Franken or Keith Olbermann has ever advocated the type of animosity toward entire groups of individuals that comes from Beck’s or Savage’s mouth nonstop. Certainly, no one on the left has advanced the untethered, anger-generating untruths that Limbaugh does on a daily basis. Just today, I was watching a video in which Limbaugh chuckled about Obama’s alleged “messiah complex,” saying “He has one thing in common with God — he doesn’t have a birth certificate.”

For those of you lucky enough to not know what he is referring to, he’s encouraging a group of wackos known as “birthers” who believe that Obama has somehow concealed or altered his true birth certificate to hide the fact that he isn’t American-born and hence he is an “illegal” president. If that’s not going to stir up hatred in those already angry that the president is black and liberal, I don’t know what is.

Yes, the left has its so-called “truthers” — people who think that the Twin Towers fell because the government detonated bombs inside them — but you would be hard-pressed to come up with any liberal media figure who promoted this theory and many of the liberal blogs don’t even allow discussion of it. It would be fair to say it’s widely mocked on the left. And in 2001 (especially after 9/11), most on the left were soft-pedaling the idea that Bush was an “illegal” president, even though the case for his illegitimacy was based on — wait for it! — facts. Certainly, talk about this wasn’t allowed within a million miles of the mainstream media.

There is no case for balanced left-right hatred here — not even remotely.

Hatred of George Bush and Dick Cheney? That’s directed at specific figures for actual things they’ve done, not at entire types of people for their imagined collective sins. Where are the people who threaten violence against anti-abortion demonstrators or who attack people for going to church? Despite the hallucinatory imaginations of a few on the religious right who claim that Christians are being persecuted (“War on Christmas?” Yeah, right), you can’t find them. And even if Sonia Sotomayor DID say that the opinions of a Hispanic female were superior to those of a white male (she didn’t; news outlets completely failed to explain what she WAS talking about, probably in order to stir up controversy), she in no way demonized white men to the point where an unbalanced person might go pick up a gun and start shooting. Yet, there were plenty of Republican elected officials claiming she did — and provoking hatred toward Hispanics.

While Democratic politicians tiptoe around any expression of disapproval of their foes that might be construed as a tad harsh, Republicans have been enabling and encouraging it for years. I try to imagine the uproar had someone on the left said the kinds of things Limbaugh routinely says. Not only would there be no groveling apologies to the talk-show host, but Democrats would be rushing to disown him and distance themselves from him. Recall the spectacle of Obama being hounded repeatedly by moderator Tim Russert in the Cleveland primary debate to disown Louis Farrakhan’s praise of him — when Obama himself had absolutely no connection to Farrakhan. Recall the grotesque spectacle of Congress, including way too many Democrats, formally censuring MoveOn — composed of citizens exercising their free-speech rights — for gently mocking Gen. Petraeus in his role as a Bush mouthpiece. That was an egregious, bullying misuse of congressional power. Given that powerful right-wing talkers like Limbaugh and O‘Reilly have created a climate of approval for any old hatred that might inflame somebody, isn’t it time that they be censured in the strongest possible language — by both parties? While citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to speak, no one has constitutionally guaranteed access to the airwaves to spread whatever kind of disruptive hatred they choose.

These shooters might be extreme, but they are NOT anomalies, or as some in the media would have it, “isolated instances.” They take to what could be considered a logical conclusion the rhetoric that fills right-wing talk radio on a daily basis, with hosts that tell the crazies, basically, “Whoever you hate deserves it.” Once you’ve told a crazy person that, many of them will take the next step and think the object(s) of their loathing deserve to die as well. The environment created by the constant hate talking tells these nuts that they are supported and they’re not really wrong. Just listen to the tepid, equivocating semi-condemnations of Dr. Tiller’s murder from the right. The half-heartedness is setting the stage for more murders.

It would be wonderful to see some Republicans who aren’t crazy and who surely can’t be encouraged by the escalating violent expressions of hatred, to stand up and speak out. Because he can’t suffer electoral consequences, Voinovich is in a great position to do so. But there are others. What about Steve LaTourette? Here’s a Republican congressman from Northeast Ohio, who is willing to openly brag on his website and in press releases about his partnerships with Dennis Kucinich. I can’t believe he’s comfortable with the ongoing demonization of entire groups of Americans. And honestly, I don’t believe he’d lose too many votes in his Lake/Geauga/Ashtabula County district for speaking up.

If Republicans don’t get control of the fear-mongers and hate-provokers that their party has encouraged and coddled for too long, the violence is likely to go on and on. I could gloat as I say that it’s also likely that the Republican party will become more and more marginalized, but I don’t think that’s a good tradeoff for this — let’s call it what it is — domestic terrorism. If dialing down the rhetoric on the right creates a stronger and more reasonable Republican party, and at the same time, more sanity to prevail in this country, it’s likely we’ll all be better off.

Anastasia Pantsios has been a writer for Cleveland alternative newsweeklies the Free Times and Scene for the past 15 years, and also did a stint in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a freelance pop-music writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. In addition to music, she has also covered theatre, visual arts and politics with an emphasis on election integrity and religion in public life. She is currently on staff at Cleveland Scene and blogs at OhioDailyBlog. An essay of hers on the formation of We Believe Ohio to push back against the religious right appeared in the book, Dispatches From the Religious Left, edited by Frederick Clarkson, published last fall. This is cross posted from Ohio Daily Blog.

  • jwest
    Anastasia,

    You are obviously an unbalanced, ignorant individual.

    By projecting the mindless hate you preach towards people that don’t share your Marxist views, you try to entice others into your sick mindset.

    What kind of person wakes up each morning so bitter and foul that they need to spread the vileness through articles like this?

    Find some help before your anger turns to violence, like so many leftists before you.

    (and perhaps if you take a different tone in your next article, I’ll take a different tone in the comments)
  • Don't worry about jwest. He's an unbalanced ignorant individual.
  • jwest
    GD,

    I’m surprised at you. Naturally I take your comment as good natured ribbing in the left-right spirit of this site, but I had hoped that you would join with me in decrying this type of shallow hatemongering.

    The only way we can suppress and discourage people who want to goad others into adopting their prejudices is by publicly humiliating them. When people point and laugh at Anastasia and her brethren, civil society will have won.
  • tidbits
    Must be getting late in the day with all the insults being hurled here. Am I at TMV or HuffRe?

    This article is so partisan, it was an effort to finish reading it. And, I say that as a fire breathing moderate.

    God lord! The extreme who oppose abortion are "driven [motivated] by ... hatred of women". There is "no case for balanced left-right hatred" (I can't believe the visages of Jeremiah Wright, the Uni-bomber, ecoterrorists, and PETA throwing blood on fellow beings just coursed through my brain).

    But, the one I love is "Democrats tiptoe around any expression of their foes that might be considered as a tad harsh. They just use mild references like knuckle dragger, mouth breather, nazi, religifascist. As for the right's obsession with Obama, see, e.g. the left's obsession with Sarah Palin, or should I say "the Wicked Witch of Wasilla" or "Caribou Barbie".

    I apologize...I sincerely apologize for sounding like a Republican ... it won't happen again. But this article is really over the edge. Please someone write something as outrageous from the right so I can regain my equilibrium.
  • jwest, of course I meant it as good-natured ribbing, but I also try to show a bit of respect for the editorial staff here, and especially on a first Guest post. Let's deal with the content of the post, rather than hurling insults.

    The author is correct, though perhaps overstates, the "demonization of the other". This is a toxic trend in American politics and those who buy into it sometimes go beyond ranting and fuming, and into unspeakable acts. We would all be better off without the demonization and with some modicum of respect for those who disagree with us. And here at TMV, I'd love to see a smidgen of adherence to proper debate rules.

    Anastasia is also correct that among those on the left who have a national voice in the media, there has been a consistent push back against conspiracy theories, and she correctly cites Limbaugh on the right for feeding the fringe. She's also correct that Democratic politicians do not go to left-leaning journalists, hat in hand, to beg forgiveness for criticizing them. I can't think of a single instance in which any Democratic politician has apologized for criticizing Olbermann or Michael Moore. Perhaps even more telling, though, is that there were no objections from the left about the Department of Homeland Security report on "leftist" extremism. A similar report from the same agency about "right wing" extremism was treated as partisan fear mongering, although sadly, the report proved all too prescient.

    Tidbits, I agree it's a bit over the top. But for an example of outrageous jive from the right, just see anything posted here by Michael Reagan or the Browns.
  • AustinRoth
    But they struggle to come up with anyone on the left equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly.

    That is because they are so biased, they cannot see left hate-bias when it bites them in the ass.

    Let's try Micheal Moore, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Matthews, Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas, Rachael Maddow, and Paul Krugman.

    See how easy it is when you are not part of the rabid left?
  • AustinRoth
    GD (got the initials right THIS time!) -

    Democratic politicians do not go to left-leaning journalists, hat in hand, to beg forgiveness for criticizing them.

    That is a very valid point. I do not consider Rush a 'leader' in the party, not necessarily because he has never held elective office, and not because he is in the end just a clown prince, but simply because at this moment in time, there is NO National Republican leader that even 50% of the party would rally around.

    BTW, speaking of his role as a clown prince, while Republicans do elect actors to office, we do not elect comedians. :)
  • tidbits
    GD - I respect your opinion, and it may be true that no Democratic "politician" has ever had to apologize to Olberman, but ask Dana Milbank what it's like to be permanently banned from the show for daring to disagree with Keith.
  • casualobserver
    Tidbits/jwest--I'm to the point of actually being more bored than incensed.

    I'll say this much for the lefties........they never get tired of saying the same thing.....over and over again.

    When did Limbaugh first say his "I hope Obama (policies) fail?.......mid-January?

    For the 5 months since then, all the left can articulate here is "the Republican Party is fast becoming extinct" or some derivation of that theme. And everything that has happened in the world since to them is now supposedly a reaffirmation of that conclusion. They're actually not even original since sds has been saying that for over a year now.

    But, if that was happening, wouldn't the voter ID and Dem/Rep preference polls change by more than their perpetual one, two, three-point fluctuations over the same last 5 months?

    If that was happening, why are Rep candidates in NY, NJ and VA polling even, if not better, than Dem candidates?

    Why is Obama moderating his campaign positions now more rightward than leftward in the face of all of this crumbling opposition?

    Good Lord.........why is Cheney polling higher than Pelosi of all things!

    Now, we get treated to the B side of the same record........unless Republicans behave like Dems say they ought to, all the millions of NeoNazi/Truther/anti-abortion/Bush-hating/atheistic-religiouszealots will come out of the woodwork and reek havoc on the world.

    Ok, let's see where this left-wing prediction of doom goes in the next five months.
  • No sale on the Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank flap. Here's the detail on that, as reported.

    Dana Milbank, reporting on Obama's Berlin tour, quoted Obama out of context, in a way that made him appear arrogant:
    "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

    The actual quote was laced with considerable humility:
    "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions"

    Apparently it is true that Olbermann did not intend to invite Milbank back, after he repeatedly refused to correct the out of context quote. As it turns out, Milbank had accepted an offer from CNN, and hence naturally, he no longer appears on MSNBC.

    I can't believe you are trying to characterize this as in any way equivalent to Republican legislators groveling to Limbaugh or O'Reilly for expressing the opinion that the commentators had crossed the line.
  • jchem
    CO, I'm with you regarding the bored aspect. I can't even remember how many times I've commented about the 4 Rush Limbaugh posts per day, or the 3 Cheney cartoons per day, or the articles that constantly tell us how evil and backward those filthy Repubs are. I've never defended those clowns because most of the time, I think its a reasonable assessment. But day in and day out, post after post...and on and on and on it keeps going. But I keep coming back because well, it's been part of my routine for a couple years now and I haven't found anywhere else that isn't consistently trolled by nuts.

    Per this post, I don't know anyone in their right mind who believes hate is monopolized on one end of the spectrum. We've had this discussion before. And you know what? It doesn't matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Hate, rage, bigotry, whatever you want to call it, is what it is. It isn't some sort of stupid political football game to play by saying "Look how innocent our side is and how evil their side is". If I am ever facing down the barrel of a gun, the last thing I'm going to be concerned about is what the person's party affiliation is.

    The next time any of my colleagues in California have to do any kind of scientific research on animals Anastasia, I will be sure to point them in your direction to ask for advice. Those eco groups aren't hateful...no they are just "gently mocking" scientists by tossing pipe bombs in their house. Perhaps you can write a letter to those groups "formally censoring them" and ask them to be nicer.
  • tidbits
    Hey GD, just just a WTF point. I actually watch Olberman (hence the WTF reference). Well, to be completely truthful, I channel surf between Olberman and O'Reilly for comedic relief from both sides of the spectrum. Each is equally egocentric and self absorbed. And, I would not rely on either for anything other than his opinion or spin on the facts. O'Reilly's "no spin zone" may be the greatest oxymoron in television history. You see, by observing, and ridiculing, the blowhards from both sides, I can effectively remain a blowhard from the center. And, yes I do believe that Olberman's refusal to allow dissenting views to be booked (though he will allow a person like Madcow with whom he disagrees generally to appear on a subject on which they agree) is every bit as offensive, or comedic, as O'Reilly shouting down anyone who challenges his views.

    Well, they're on in three minutes...gotta warm up the tube.
  • tidbits, I agree about Olbermann, especially on style. I sometimes enjoy him when I slip into angry liberal mode. I prefer Maddow for left-tilt news, or Thom Hartmann. But none of the lefty newsers have any power and certainly none could be characterized as representing a party. The poll that was covered yesterday, showing both Dems and Repubs see Limbaugh and Gingrich as the key spokesmen for the GOP is pretty sad though, for the party.
  • roro80
    Well, I thought the post was pretty right-on, but then again, I am unabashedly liberal. It's kind of cute to talk about PETA and their blood throwing and Jeramiah Wright and his fiery sermons "God Damn America" and somehow equate that with...KILLING PEOPLE. We can all talk about how terrible it is that Olbermann presents what is often his opinion as news, and how Rachel Maddow throws a lot of mockery at the right, and then somehow equate that with ... the outright lies and utterly transparent distain for women and people of color brought by those microphoned idiots on the right. I mean, a lot of moderates don't like hearing the opinions of lefties any more than the righties, but let's not pretend there's an equivalency here.
  • Don Quijote
    Let's try Micheal Moore, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Matthews, Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas, Rachael Maddow, and Paul Krugman.


    Krugman? I understand that it must really be annoying for conservatives to have a Clark & Nobel prize winner take them to the woodshed on a regular basis, but you are just going to have to get over it...

    Oh and none of the people in that list have been banned from Great Britain...

    BTW if Chris Matthew is on the left, I am Santa Claus.
  • AustinRoth
    Krugman won the Nobel for Economics, not his political opinions. Like many Left intelectuals (Chonsky comes to mind), they think think their expertise in one narrow area translates to a broad expertise over many areas. It does not.
  • Rudi
    Rachael Maddow, and Paul Krugman - Both are Phd's, now who on the right cables news noise can make the same claim?

    Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly - I wonder if any in this group are college grads or have advanced degrees.

    AR - I mentioned Larison in the past. If you want a paleocon intellectual go to his site:
    http://www.amconmag.com/larison/
    John Schwenker is also blogging at AmCon, and this Liebrul enjoys reading both daily:
    http://www.amconmag.com/schwenkler/
    While I am a fan of the ACLU, I enjoy reading a reasoable thought from the other side. The Beck's and Savages are just stupid clowns playing bad populist noise...
  • jchem
    er, Rudi you can do a quick Wikipedia search for Savage and find that he has a PhD from UC Berkeley as well as two Master's Degrees from U Hawaii, all within science disciplines. He isn't some mindless dolt, but he does have very hard, take no prisoners, conservative view of the world. I don't listen to him for much of that reason, but he has pretty solid credentials.
  • jchem
    roro80 - It's kind of cute to talk about PETA and their blood throwing

    That it is kind of "cute", huh? I was talking about the other eco groups that toss pipe bombs into houses. But hey, they haven't killed anyone, yet, so for now I suppose research scientists (myself included) should just learn to ignore them, right?
  • Rudi
    jchem - Your right about Savage, but I'll read Larison before I listen to the rants of Savage. Did PETA kill cops in Pittsburgh, an abortion provider or a security guard?
  • jchem
    Rudi, I'm with you about Larison vs Savage. But I never said PETA killed anyone. I thought that was pretty clear in my last comment.
  • roro80
    I think it's clear, jchem, that your tongue-n-cheek monitor might be broken. And hey, maybe they haven't killed anyone *yet* because they're, uh, not trying to kill anyone. I'm one of those "Vegetarians Against PETA", and I am totally against the extremists involved in ecoterrorism. You know what? So is EVERYONE else not directly involved in those groups. That includes people to the far far left of the political spectrum, that includes every person on any channel reading the news. Nobody says "well, we shouldn't really condone violence, but the *sshole had it coming to him" like we saw from groups like Operation Rescue, etc, etc after Dr. Tiller's murder. So, as stated above, let's not pretend there's an equivalency.

    I'm curious, since you brought up your job, do you do research in a place that has ecoterrorists bothering you, or are you just trying to implicate that you must be smarter than I am due to your status as a research scientist?
  • jchem, Michael Weiner was not a good ethnobotanist, and never distinguished himself in that field. I know him and was surprised when he went from arrogant, egotistical know-it-all consultant to arrogant, egotistical, flaming hate monger for the right.
  • jchem
    GD, I'll admit I don't know much about the guy other than what I gathered from Wiki. With his recent dust-up with the Brits he's putting a lot of stock into his work from his past incarnation as an ethnobotanist. I assume if he was prolific in that area, he wouldn't have had to go into talk radio. Oh well. You knew him? Small world, eh?
  • jchem
    roro80, I'm not implying anything. Yeah, I'm a scientist, so what? Before that I was a young hippy festival jumping across the country in a hazy VW Microbus. I'm no smarter than anyone else here trying to make sense of the world. My research has nothing to do with animals, so directly, no I'm not affected. But then again, I'm not directly affected by any of these killings that have happened in the past couple of weeks either. It doesn't matter if it doesn't directly affect me. It's wrong, simple as that.

    I went to grad school with some folks who now are at research universities in California, testing various drugs on animals. One's had his car set on fire, another one had his lab broken into and all of the animals released out into the community. Just because no one has been killed yet doesn't justify it. What would happen if one of those animals hopped up on something decided to go on a rampage and kill anyone it encountered? I've said before that terrorism is terrorism, regardless of what side of the political aisle it comes from. No one should have to put up with it. Not from the left, not from the right, not from anywhere. To assert that crazy killers are only right-wing extremists is simply dishonest.
  • roro80
    Fair enough, jchem, I just thought it was a little odd to throw that in there. I didn't mean to jump to conclusions.

    More to the point: I certainly agree that it's wrong for anyone on either side to engage in vandalism or property damage, and of course violence, in order to further their personal political agenda. As you said, nobody deserves to feel unsafe at their place of employment. No argument there. There is, however, a huge difference between breaking into a lab to steal bunnies and grabbing a gun and, with full intention, shooting someone you disagree with. The original post is about the difference between left and right in both the violence level and the rhetoric. Again: how is a bombing timed so as to be sure of no loss of life but maximum property damage followed by overwhelming (and correct!) condemnation by even the most liberal news sources the same as a premeditated political murder followed by a collective shoulder shrug from conservative sources?

    "To assert that crazy killers are only right-wing extremists is simply dishonest."

    I'm sure there are plenty of lefty crazy killers; they just don't seem to kill for political purposes. If there's an example I'm missing, by all means hit me with it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC