Rhetoric Is Now Dangerously Beneath Contempt

ODS has really reached a pretty self-sustaining level. Bush had to destroy the economy while assaulting and destabilizing the wrong country, while Obama is pretty much the end of America just because he is putting through his campaign program in a quite flawed manner.

But invading Iraq was undeniably wrong and purely stupid, while for Obama the criticism ranges from the wonky and knowledgeable to the purely insane, yet *all* this criticism is legitimized by high-ranking republicans no matter the quality or substance. The BDS was simply more justified, often reality-based even when it was very combative and blatant in tone, yet less accepted. The DNC would never have been allowed to sympathize or indulge anti-war protesters of the kind exemplified in the article. White, lower-class and heartland grievances about "government" are acceptable political tools for the GOP, while the DNC had to be very careful about the tone and pitch of its criticism during Bush's first term.

It isn't just politicians, but also journalists. I don't even bother reading anything I see on RCP anymore. The headlines read...

Why Obama wants to eat your children
The Right is more Right than Hilter
The CIA wants to eat your grandmother
Why not let them murder? Better them than me

These attack filled, fact vacant debates are getting tiresome. And now these guys are joking about hunting the POTUS.

Kastanj - Well, I'm not sure the Dems are any better than the Reps when you have liberal D's calling moderates "brain dead"...hardly careful in tone and pitch, and not issue related. Granted, no assassination references, but partisan rancor cannot be sustained without foils on both sides.

The real question is what can be done to stop it or at least calm it down? Constantly publicizing the latest bile seems to have an escalating effect, not an ameliorating effect.

Btw, even in your comment you accuse the GOP of catering to the "white lower class". If you think about it, that too is disparaging of the other side, and insinuates, at least as I read it, racism or tolerance of racism by Republicans.

tidbits,
So, mildly insulting someone is the same as joking about assassination?

There's a pretty simple reason for it, Joe. I was at cafepress.com designing some T-shirts, and on a lark I browsed current and new designs to see what was currently popular. It was astonishing the number of Obama Joker shirts, the O.B.A.M.A. acronym shirts, pictures of Obama as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, you name it.

Now, this isn't a Left vs. Right issue now I think. I think ever since Clinton was elected, demonizing the President has turned into a cottage industry that's simply exploited by businesses. Books, radio, TV, internet, and tons of bumper stickers with custom tailored vitriol just for whatever party is out of the White House at the moment. I mean, Bush was being compared to a monkey and a daddy's boy as soon as he was elected too. Now it's Obama's turn to be smeared as a socialist or a sociopath or a Chicago mobster.

Hate sells. That's about all there is to it.

"Bush was being compared to a monkey and a daddy's boy as soon as he was elected too."

But Bush also enjoyed 90+% approval ratings after 9/11. He was given a pass until it was clear Iraq was an unqualified disaster.

Obama, on the other hand, has been the target of vicious (and often untrue) rightwing attacks since the McCain campaign led the way last year.

Chriswww-Kinda makes it hard to believe the hype about the evils of the "liberal media" when they attack the liberal more than they have conservatives.

TheMagicalSkyFather,
To be fair, the source of Obama demonization is not the media (aside from Murdoch outlets like Fox News). But they are giving a lot more credence to rightwing protesters than they ever did Bush-era to leftwing protesters.

I was 13 years old when the Internet started to take off, and at the time I thought it was the greatest invention of all time. A few years later though, I slowly started to notice the dark side of it. Ease of displaying false information in particular, whether it is someone stating the end of the world the next day, or a sex offender posing as a harmless kid chatting and luring other kids to him. Without seeing a the person face to face, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not information is valid unless you were already knowledgeable of subject matter. Although I believe the internet to still be a revolutionary invention, I can no longer view it in a positive light overall. For me it’s about trust and distrust, and I along with many TMV readers have learned long ago not to believe everything we find on the internet, both when it agrees and conflicts with our beliefs. Unfortunately too many people world-wide find websites they like and treat them as gospel, no matter how crazy it may seem to everybody else. I am sorry to say it, but we are only seeing the beginning of a very ugly chapter in the internet and the media that use it. The Internet, IMO, has killed Bi-partisanship not among the elected officials, but among the populace.

What really shocks me is the number of higher ranking Republicans , out on their town hall struts, who listen to the babbling looney toons spout their "death to Obama, he is Hitler, and WILL murder dear Grams"
and do not lift a finger to turn the coversation back to something actually reality based.
And yes, Senator Grassley, I'm looking right at you.

It is fascinating to me how both sides insist on pointing the finger at the other.

But first let me be clear that I do not continence assassination talk (thought I made that clear, but guess I didn't). It's over the top and should be investigated by the Secret Service and FBI. Period.

Back to the point. I liked the comment about T-shirts and Obama as the Joker. Ok, that's unacceptable to me. But, does anyone remember the T-shirts with GWB as Alfred E. Newman, or the post cards with GWB depicted as Alfred E Newman with the tag line "A village has lost its idiot" ? Just asking. Lit3 is right. We've turned personal political attacks into an industry, and both sides do it.

Why is it that Republicans can see it when Democrats do it, and Democrats can see it when Republicans do it, but neither side can acknowledge that their side does it? It's amazing how partisans are so bliind to their own flaws but so quick to identify the same flaws in their opponents.

I agree Chris. Indeed, the most accurate slur you could direct at Obama is accusing him of being an "empty suit" much of the same way Bush was mocked. (Comparing Obama to a monkey is off limits.)

It's interesting to try and dissect this because in provides insight in a Left vs. Right mindset. Mockery of Bush by Stewart, Colbert and the like consisted of dry witticisms of how Bush was led like a child by Darth Cheney or was an evil Machivellian genius bent on eroding American liberty. The Right, in contrast, goes for vicious humor (partially because there's so much competition for shock value) quite quickly. Plus there's a racial dimension as well which Republicans are trying to tap into. Obama as leftwing bomber, Obama as the white Granny killer, Obama staring at a woman's ass with all the associated lust of a black man, Obama as a foreigner, black radical, etc.

So I agree the Right wing hate is more fantastic, more paranoid, and more vicious, and much less subtle than the liberal contempt Bush received. I also agree it's more dangerous, because homegrown terrorism comes from the Right these days, not the Left.

WannabeCentrist raises a really valuable point about the influence of the internet on political discourse among the general population. It is less pronounced at TMV, which is why I spend some time here as opposed to other sites. See, Shannonlee's earlier comment about RCP.

The internet issue, however, transcends our internal political dialogue. We no longer call the opposition names in the easy chairs of our living rooms among friends or have editors culling out over-the-top letters to the editor. Instead, our rancor is spread around the world in the blink of an eye. Question: what effect does this have on our image in the rest of the world? Do we look disfunctional, hateful, both, something else?

Until recently I would have agreed with those here who suggest the Right is worse than the Left, but I have changed my view. Subtlety vs. explicitness is no excuse...that's just a matter of how the offensive message is delivered and does not go the offensiveness of the message itself. When D's suggest, however subtly, that R thinking should be equated with "trailer trash", it is not likely to endear the opposition or foster bi-partisanship. Same is true the other way around.

But, I still want to ask the question: is there anything that can be done to stop it or at least calm the waters?

My earlier comment about the media not being liberal was not to point to one side over the other but just to point to the obvious fallacy. The media is socially liberal and economically conservative which makes them LOOK left wing but in reality they are just about ratings and advertiser dollars or about their parent corps lobbying interests.

On the left right split the left began going after Bush hard after he invaded Iraq. The right has yet to stop going after Obama hard. The left disavowed the protestors and extremists on their side, notice how those anti-terror laws that would never be used against US citizens were used against eco-terrorists without any protest from the media nor from lefty pols.

The right on the other hand uses the extremists talking points and takes their side and when an abortion clinic is attacked, which is just as much terrorism as the eco-terrorists no terror charges are made because the right would go nuclear.

The problem is not the extremists and protestors its that one side stokes the flames and the other has to distance themselves from them. I find it hard to call this both sides problem when one side is taking it much further and much faster than the other side did.

Do not get me wrong I do understand that this is a greatly weakened rep party trying to re-build itself but again that does not make it right nor equivalent. Bush was given more of a pass after TWO highly contested elections than Obama has been given after a land slide, something seems fishy about trying to make this equal.

It is fascinating to me how both sides insist on pointing the finger at the other.

Exactly - this is hardly anything new, and both sides will laugh it off if it's directed at their opponent and take it seriously if it's directed towards their party.

Have Democrats forgotten this kind of stuff?:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/kilborn1.html

Lit3Bolt said "Hate sells. That's about all there is to it."

Sad but very, very true. A combination of hate, constant one-upsmanship and a constant race for more shrill hyperbole & rhetoric.

DaGoat-Thats disgusting but to be honest I had never seen nor heard of it before. I think it may be that the intertubes have just gotten a good deal better about instantly informing people of any such issues.

Everyone commenting here should click into DaGoat's link.

Fortunately, being a moderate doesn't require one to buy into all the false equivalence arguments put forth (probably often by reflex and without thought) by apologists for the more loony and indefensible elements... which seem to prevail most often (like it or not) on the right. The lowering of the bar on political discourse seems to be happening faster and with less indignation not only from citizens, but also less indignation (and even encouragement in some cases) from political leaders who should be expected to know better. I find it to be a highly disturbing phenomenon, one that points up a steady increase in ignorance and a steady decrease in respect for the concept of intergrity. Also I think Wannabe_Centrist raises an interesting point, and is one I've thought about before as well. I enjoy the internet, but have serious reservations about it's downside.

Why Obama wants to eat your children
The Right is more Right than Hilter
The CIA wants to eat your grandmother
Why not let them murder? Better them than

Say what?!?!?!

Was that a joke, Shannonlee, or am I wrong to assume that RCP stands for Real Clear Politics? I've never seen anything like the headlines you cited there.

CStanley-This is actually why I stopped reading RCP as well, they went a bit off a partisan cliff and I have not gone back since.

The internet is not to blame for these extremes except for the anonymous nature we all rely on to state out views. When my kids first started hitting the web, I explained it as a big city, and like all big cities, there are streets you don't want to travel.

Being an unknown voice that people can hear is exhilarating. Conversations on the site especially allow for exchange of opposing views with people you'd never meet otherwise. Another factor most people don't realize is one's opinion can be regionally shaped on an almost unconscious level, so "common sense" or "common knowledge " can be found to be neither when you say it here.

Sleazy rhetoric demonstrates a simple mind lacking intellectual discipline. If someone tells you a racist joke at work, walk away. If someone writes a racist comment, jump em hard knowing the anonymity works both ways.

Don't blame the internet for the weak minded, evil stuff put out there. Despite its revulsion, you certainly can no longer pretend it doesn't exist.

IMO

RCP leans right as an aggregator, but there's nothing remotely similar to the kind of rhetoric that shannon claimed in her fake headlines. Here's a link to today's offerings. Examples:
Real Clear Politics Friday
How Will Ted Kennedy Be Remembered? - Jay Winik, Wall Street Journal
A Prince With Purpose - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
Kennedy's Big Government Paternalism - Cathy Young, RealClearPolitics
Obama Slips to 50% in the Gallup Poll - Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times
Fixing Health Care Is Good for Business - Sec. of Commerce Gary Locke, WSJ
Can Dems Rescue ObamaCare? - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
Mistakes Were Made But Fight is Far From Over - Jonathan Cohn, TNR
Obama's Carrousel of Incompetence - Emmett Tyrrell, American Spectator
Incurring Deficits Through Haste and Waste - Jay Ambrose, OC Register
Don't Be Frightened by the Deficits - Paul Krugman, New York Times
Afghanistan: U.S. Can't Win Without Major Reforms - Fred Kaplan, Slate
Obama's Mideast Vision: Confusion - Michael Young, Daily Star
Congress Should Investigate Bush's Crimes - Christopher Hayes, The Nation
We Need 'Rough Men' at the CIA - Pat Buchanan, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Kennedy Inspired Change, Progress - Gordon Brown, Boston Globe
The Reagans and the Kennedys - Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
Bringing the Myth Down to Earth - David Von Drehle, Time
Clips on Kennedy: O'Reilly | Olbermann | Shrum | Rove | Biden | Hatch
RCP Blog: Crist Taps Former Chief of Staff for Vacant Senate Seat

If you guys refuse to look at RCP because of articles like these, I don't know what to say. It's no wonder people are getting such a leftward skew though if you think that such a site is off limits for being 'off a partisan cliff.' I'd venture to bet that there are more left leaning source materials there than you'll find right leaning links here at TMV.

CStanley- I actually have not looked at RCP since right before the election at which point the headlines were much as the other poster noted. If I want right leaning news I get that from Drudge every day, I see no need to fund advertising dollars for a website that went as far as they did in promoting people like Malkin. I am glad that they have calmed back down though. They used to be one of my favorite sites to read but I swapped them for politicshome.com.

CStanley: I don't get involved in comments but must answer yours since it is inaccurate to say the LEAST. I personally link a LOT to RealClearPolitics AND RealClearWorld. In fact, I occassionallly do link to their content or particularly on foreign issues link to them, quote a bit from their post and do my own commentary. It is one of the sites I LINK TO MOST. Even if they had 200,000 articles on it, no matter how much I did or didn't link to it, it does not obscure THIS STORY and the issue it raises about the coarsening and rhetorical violence in American political discussion. It's inaccurate to so say the least. And if you emailed those folks they will confirm that TMV links to it a lot because it has such great content. This is NOT a "left" or "right" issue but there are some Americans (like me) who see not just a polarization but increasing comments in terms of violence and the fanning of hatreds that could end badly. What would have happened if a politician made a joke like this 10 years ago? Or 8? Or 20? Or 30? Or right after the murders of JFK, RFK, MML, Jr, the attempted assassination of Ford, Reagan? Their name would be mud and the bulk of voters of both parties would consider them a kook, at worst, and a politician who doesn't consider the weight of words at best. Again: a)not a right or left issue b)yes, we know and link to RCP a lot of TMV, have and do. I love the comments you and others leave on the site...but there is no way I can let THAT assertion stands. I raise theissue again: if THIS is where we are trending in what people think is "cute..witty" and appropriate to say give the country's problems with political murders, high school shootings, etc. then exactly where are we heading as the bar is lowered so far down that you see a Welcome To The South Pole sign? There ARE thinking people in both parties who wish a lot of people on BOTH SIDES who use this kind of rhetoric would just go away. Unfortunately, I am concluding that those who tolerate and enable it are in the majority in voting. And if you think we are polarized, now, how polarized will the country be if someone on the right or left is hurt by someone on the right or left who didn't quite get the joke part of the...alleged joke? (I'll be offline all day)
Again: discussion on this post is GREAT. I just had to clear it up on RCP and TMV

CS

You're right, only half are incendiary, the other half I agree with :-)

Seriously though, a well reasoned argument is no problem. Where people typically see extreme or tasteless statements is in the comments. Not necessarily RCP, I'm talking generally here.

My problem is the lowering of congressional bald face scare tactics that have surfaced in the past few years. How can an elected rep or sen say he believes there's a call for "death panels?" I don't recall a dem making such outlandish statements, but I'm sure you'll point out any i have missed.

Joe, just to clarify- I completely agree that you do seem to link to sites like RCP and to some of the sources that they quote, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I was responding to a couple of frequent TMV commenters here who were making assertions about RCP that I found incredibly inaccurate. I assume, since you do in fact use RCP as a source, that you'd agree with me on the inaccuracy of their statements.

Now, I probably shouldn't have gone in the direction of bringing TMV into it at all. and for that I apologize. The reason I did was because I do sometimes find myself scratching my head as to where people get their ideas, and why they seem to be viewing our political world from such an angle (and yeah, I know, we all think that we're the reasonable ones and everyone else is a partisan whacko...but still...) I think it's a big problem that people won't even look at other sites that might be examining the news and opinion from one side or the other- even if that site is not into the kind of inflammatory and propagandistic type of stuff which shannonlee alleged was the case for RCP (and it's simply NOT.)

When you look at Memeorandum, too, increasingly you see that left or left leaning blogs only link to certain stories while right or right leaning blogs only link to certain other stories. Everyone seems to be comfortable with reading what confirms their own preexisting biases instead of being willing to challenge their views.

As to your initial post- I really didn't comment on it at all, but was responding to a tangent that came up in the comments. I obviously (or in case it wasn't obvious) condemn any jokes that in any way insinuate assassination of any elected official.

Oh, and in case it sounds schizophrenic that I did make that comment about who TMV links to and what I'm saying here about your own linking habits, Joe, my initial comment was in regard to the blog as a whole. I've said before that my feeling about bias here has to do with certain bloggers, and the periods of time when certain people post prolifically while others who provide balance to them aren't posting as much. That's strictly my opinion- some people may agree, some may disagree- but what I'm getting at is that the blog as a whole doesn't always follow your lead (and I realize that it's impossible for a group blog to achieve that kind of consistency.)

It wasn't "now dangerously beneath contempt" when Reagan or Bush were the object of much worse behavior. But then again, neither of them had a health care takeover attempt they and their party had sought that is now truly in trouble, either.

I will add one more comment about the subject of the post itself- I tend to feel that talking about incendiary rhetoric too much tends to amplify it instead of having a chilling effect. I always thought (and I believe may have even been told this) that some of the more incendiary speech against Bush (like an assassination snuff film that came out in Canada) was deliberately not talked about here, as an editorial decision not to give any credence to people like that. I think the same general idea should hold now- let the SS determine how to protect the president from legitimate threats, and don't give any extra airtime to idiots who want to crank up the potentially violent factions.

CS - Base on your prior comment, I went to RCP & did a search for the titles referred to by Shannonlee. While this was just a cusory search, I found no such titles.

I retract my reference to Shannonlee's early comment. Thanks for pointing that out.

CS

And what do you do when those in congress spout the death panel rhetoric? Or is rhetoric about a program fair game? If it is, I would argue that any president advocating killing grandma is in the same danger as an abortion doctor who murders babies. The line between rhetoric and insane action has been crossed long before this latest example of Obama tags.

Where do you draw that line?

CStanley- As I will assume I am considered on an extreme side. I can tell you where I get my news.

www.reddit.com
www.drudgereport.com balanced against www.huffingtonpost.com
www.politico.com
english.aljazeera.net/
Outside the beltway
The Moderate Voice
www.politicshome.usa.com

I check some others but these are the ones I check pretty religiously. If the title is offensive to one side or the other I tend to not even bother as its pretty obvious what views they hold and I am tired of being insulted. I am also tired of the other side being insulted. I am interested in actual news and not opinion. If I want opinion I come here or Outside The Beltway or Reddit since I tend to prefer comment strings to the actual articles and on those sites the debunkable is often debunked which is why I use them.

RCP lost me when too many of their titles became inflamatory and I moved to politicshome and found a larger selection to read from and many more blogs as the handful that RCP used to have were shaded a heavy red when I quit checking them.

I will say that most of the above sites rarely if ever make me happy because they are speaking what I already believe. This could be because I am somewhere between a socialist and a libertarian or it could be because I am a history geek and both sides are always trying to re-write history. I realized that every time I clicked on an inflammatory article I gave them one more reason to post more inflammatory articles so I stopped. The best way to silence the extreme voices is to ignore them. Clicking the links to be "moderate" is a path to further extremism as much as being an extreme right or leftist gives you no standing to whine about the other sides extremism. It reminds me of the 90's habit of flipping between CBS/ABC and Fox and calling yourself a moderate while not understanding that all of your media is coming from corporate financially conservative media though the Fox portion is in the more extreme camp.

TMV's inflammatory titles I tend to ignore because the titles and the articles rarely remain on one side only which is why I like the site.

C'mon, folks, ease up on ShannonLee a bit. I'm reading that comment as a bit of levity as an example of the tone of some of the articles' titles. And, yes, sometimes that is, indeed, the tone that is found there. I check that site pretty much every day, and sometimes it really is like, hey, anything good today? Nope, just more people screaming that the world is ending from their narrow point of view. It goes back to MagicSkyFather's comment about the media being in it for the money - I fully agree, and what gets exposure, hits, etc., better than a flashy over-the-top headline?

As for tidbit's question ("what can we do about it?"), I have long had the idea that a lot of this is the consequence of gerrymandered voting districts. Since candidates in these districts don't really have the slightest chance of loosing to a candidate from the opposing party, they don't have to talk about, or even consider, opposing views, and therefore they pander more and more to the base. As a result of this, all thoughts of moderation, reasonableness, or civility are out the door.

Now, I don't really have any good way to fix this, but surely someone somewhere could come up with a way to redistrict so that each side would have to take into consideration the views and thoughts of the other side in order to get elected. Independent judicial panels, maybe? Again, I'm not sure, but it should definitely be taken out of the hands of the individual state legislatures.

I really wasn't referring specifically to you, and didn't intend for anyone to have to list every site they frequent, but thanks for the response. I'm actually surprised you are OK with Drudge but not RCP- I think the latter is much more balanced and takes fewer liberties with the headlines.

And that's where I'm puzzled about RCP because to me it seems slightly right leaning, but also provides balance from sources like TNR, Salon, Krugman, etc, and their headlines seem pretty straightforward. Maybe they went through a period of being more snarky with the headlines, but if so I must have missed it. An example of a rightie site that does that is Hotair, and I have to admit to some guilty pleasure laughing at some of their titles (while also sometimes rolling eyes or feeling they've gone too far.)

In the haste to play the moral equivalence game, I think we're missing the context of Joe's link. A hopeful Republican governor, even a long shot, saying it's open season on the President is astonishing and disgusting. I cannot recall any similar statements made by Democratic politicians during the Bush years, but maybe that's my own bias coming into play.

In answer to tidbits, the only way I see sort of behavior to stop this is for people in their own parties to start policing the discourse. I never had more respect for John McCain than the town hall where he snatched the microphone from a woman who was scared of the "Arab Hussein Obama" and defended him as an American.

"American." That's a funny term, isn't it? Not one you hear much these days. I'll say it again: hate sells and those being sold on hate are being suckered by people who are laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sure Rex Rammell has talkshow opportunities waiting for him after he loses in primaries.

Hemm, I tried to reply earlier to your first comment about this (where you asked for similar examples from Dems) but Disqus is acting up for me today (is it me or do other people have trouble with inability to stay logged on? And then today I'm getting an error message saying I'm posting too quickly, but even after waiting and attempting again I get the same error message.)

Anyway- my earlier comment was that off the top of my head, the first example that came to mind was Pete Stark during the SCHIP debate saying that Bush ought to want to keep kids healthy since he was sending them to Iraq to 'get their heads blown off for his amusement.'

I think he did apologize eventually, but it's still way beyond the pale to say something like that and I don't see how it would differ in terms of inciting potential violence against the president than your example of Tiller being publicly called a baby killer, or the potential to incite it against Obama or any other Dem for the 'death panel' or euthanasia of grandma.

CStanley, I did not take it personally I just tend to take extreme stances so I assume that I am considered extreme and therefore wanted to explain my sources in case anyone thought I was coming from elsewhere. On the RCP thing Drudge is more extreme but Huffington is one sided as well and I use them to balance one another and I also rarely click on links that look like tabloid news which means I read little from either website. RCP moved off of my list when they struck me as a web version of Fox that seemed to prefer inflammatory material for the right and left so I moved to politicshome because they had more choices but always have the ones from RCP as well. If I could not get that news elsewhere I probably would still check them but the site I traded them for I am very found of.

CS - Yeah, having the same problem with Disqus here. Every time I move around on TMV, I have to log back in to comment or even hit a "like" button. Very annoying.

I think a whole host of reasons are in play........media chasing readership/viewership with sensationalism, politics often attracting people that couldn't get or hold down real jobs with the same level of power, anonymous internet giving certain people a sense of bravado that they couldn't muster in real life........and to take on Mr. Gandelman specifically, whatever the teacher allows in the classroom.

And, yes, ShannonLee was clearly doing hyperbole for effect........she was reading too many Jazz columns lately!

Thanks

I knew you would come through with an example on the left.

My point being, save elections, how do people elevate the political discussion out of the slime-fest that is more and more common. I wouldn't vote for Stark for dog-killer after a comment like that.

Well, buchanans "We Need 'Rough Men' at the CIA" sounds a lot like the grandmother eating one.

As long as the far right and the far left think they can get mileage out of it they will keep it up. The left is now demonizing their moderates just as the right did when they were in power. Maybe on day moderates will disregard the idiots whether they be progressives on the left or the religious right on the other side. Too often moderates let slide (myself included) the remarks of the kooks on the side they are currently closer to on an issue. We need to call out both fringes and make fun of them both.