Partisan speech: What's OK? What crosses the line?

[Teller]

First, I'd just like to say God bless the victims and families involved in the Arizona shooting. I think we can all agree on that. (Or at least send them our best, heartfelt wishes.)

What we don't seem to be able to agree on is the difference between what constitutes hardcore partisan rhetoric, and what is incendiary speech that could (or is intended to) incite acts of violence.

So let's figure it out here. If there are things you've heard pundits, politicians, even fellow voters say, that you think cross the line, let's hear them. Let's see links if you have them.

If there are things that you feel are OK, but other people think they're meant to, or could, incite violence, let's see those too.

This debate is about to be had on a national level; and it probably should be. Let's see if we can put together some working definition of what's acceptable and what isn't....by those mightily high ES standards. :)

[Burgold]

I think the first and most obvious thing is a direct call to violence.

It can be a fine line because saying, "We must take our country back" is pretty standard and mundane fare. Doing while waving a gun and showing images of the White House burning or people being hung on the other hand...

This is a really difficult topic for me on a concrete level because I hate censorship. I don't think anything really should be restricted. Heck, I believe in the right of Neo-Nazis too march, rally, and speak.

What it comes down to is much more about "how" though than "what." How do I choose to criticize this program, that politician, that platform. If I come at it from the angle of Death Panels, and putting our children into the ovens... which was amazingly done in the health reform debate... how is that constructive, how is it productive. Demonization and mischaracterization are not helpful. They're destructive.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the obscenity definition. (aka I know it when I see it). I don't actually want any imposed control or censorship. What I do want is for each reporter, politician, analyst, commentator, and blogger to think about their responsibility, role and accountability. After all, the goal is almost always to improve something or stop something. The goal isn't to destroy, burn or kill. And those who disagree with us need to become the respected opposition instead of the enemy.

[btfoom]

To me, it stops when the attacks are against the person, not the belief.

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on, the issues are the topics that should be debated. Too often, both sides focus too much on a person. These type of attacks become very heated (on both sides) and really don't do anything but alienate people.

So, my basic belief is: There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures..... and the Dutch!!!

[Teller]

First of all Burg, I agree with you completely. (As I usually do on matters of....I don't know....morality? That's not the right word, but I hope you know what I mean.) We're both staunchly opposed to censorship, but we also both realize what seemingly innocent speech, on the surface, can do.

I'm glad you brought up the "taking our country back" thing. I was going to ask should saying, "We're targeting X congressional district in the next election" be off limits? Should members this board be arrested for saying, figuratively, "We should blow up congress and start over?" in the same vain we say, "Blow up the Redskins and rebuild 'em!"

Is it military-style language that's the problem? Or is it deeper? Is it using the startling, sometimes shocking, mental imagery that's the issue? I mean, who's not gonna get pissed off to their core if they believe Obama is going to set up a panel that will decide your granny doesn't get the treatment she needs?

Personally, "targeting" things doesn't bother me. "Blowing things up and starting over" doesn't bother me, as long as it's BRUTALLY clear that only a figurative sense is intended. What gets to me is being told that my rights are being eroded, in a believable way. I'll get far more upset about that than I ever will someone saying "We're gonna hit them like a locomotive in the XXXX election." You take that literally, and it's pretty gruesome. But it's more frightening, and more believable, when someone can make a convincing argument that our rights are being infringed upon.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think it crosses the line when you start referring to the opposition as the enemy, and equating them to the worst and most vile people in world history.

[Teller]

I think it crosses the line when you start referring to the opposition as the enemy, and equating them to the worst and most vile people in world history.

I would agree with that. Especially when it's a calculated move. Beck uses this type of tactic a lot, and even though his show doesn't seem outright scripted, it's VERY calculated.

On the other hand, when Obama used the word "enemies" instead of "opponents" (and later apologized) I don't think that's nearly as destructive. Wrong? Sure. A mistake? Definitely. Evil? Not a chance. Beck pushes the envelope in terms of approaching evil sometimes with some of his references.

I just realized, though, the inherent problem with this thread. Even if we ALL agree on what's over the line (which won't happen, of course) we're going to run into mountains of disagreement on what to do about it.

[Burgold]

I think where we start to get in trouble is when we start calling people names-- be they Hitler, Nazi, Socialist, Communist, Baby Killer, anti-American, traitor, etc.

I think if you start calling a guy that every single day, people start to squint and look at them funny. They start wondering, "Gee, they must be really bad to be called all that stuff." and then they start hating it. Obama is a great example of both irrational love and hate. Here's a guy who's a great American story, child of single parents who by the sweat of his brow became became the top guy at the best college in the country and then President and as President in the first two years under historically bad conditions... got a new START treaty, eliminated insurers from not covering previous conditions, stopped bank failures, began the ramp down in Iraq, and a number of other things that are pretty good mixed in with a bunch of stuff that was dubious and bad, but the descriptors are just out of proportion.

Is he really a Kenyan born Islamic extremist Communist sleeper terrorist? Is he really the worst President the U.S. has ever had? Should the first priority be "to get rid of him?" Should his children be compared to monkeys or people claim that he's abusing them because they seem too well behaved?

I think the invective is out of proportion. I think it's designed to get and keep people hot. Hot people can and eventually will do something stupid. Now, hopefully that stupid thing is harmless, but with some nuts you never know and we have had too many Presidents shot. We don't need another.

Still, it's a really hard line because we need the right to get critical and the right to get angry when there is cause. And sometimes calling someone a jerk is merited. Still, I think about all the sentences I have typed over the years and then deleted because I realized within myself that there was a better, more accurate, or more constructive way to get my message across. I think it's incumbent upon those with a platform to be better and it's important for those of us who listen to demand better. It's insane to me that the McLaughlin Group is now considered the reasonable, civil show. That show used to be the height of incivility. Now, I'm told that they are reasonable because all they do is yell and yell over each other, but at least they're polite and can make intelligent points.

I may be in the minority here, but I'll always take a Jim Lehrer or a Tim Russert over an Olbermann or some of the others.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I just realized, though, the inherent problem with this thread. Even if we ALL agree on what's over the line (which won't happen, of course) we're going to run into mountains of disagreement on what to do about it.
Maybe we start with some integrity amongst ourselves in no longer defending rhetoric that crosses the line when it comes from the politicians we may support.
Then maybe moving to condemning such rhetoric when we see it.
I think it starts with each of us and then we can affect the whole.

[Teller]

Maybe we start with some integrity amongst ourselves in no longer defending rhetoric that crosses the line when it comes from the politicians we may support.
Then maybe moving to condemning such rhetoric when we see it.
I think it starts with each of us and then we can affect the whole.

This is getting a little scary. Agreed. Again.

I'll make you a deal. You call me on this stuff when I do it, respectfully, and I'll commit to seriously considering what you have to say. We'll adopt the Burgold Strategy. :)

[Bang]

Certain analogies can be made better.
For example, Obama says the right are the enemy who must be punished,, that's pretty hard standard political fare... and unfortunately in this day and age should be followed with "So make them feel it at the ballot box" or something to make it crystal clear that they really aren't actual enemies

Palin can use the word "target".. I don't see anything wrong with the word. But when you then couple it with gun imagery and crosshairs, you start conecting dots for people.. whether it's intended to cause violence I very much doubt. But at the same time, it isn't too much of a stretch to see how someone might get that in their head.

( idon't think there's many accidents in politics unless it's in front of a live audience. Everything else that is released by any campaign is well researched and it's intent is known right on down to the colors used on the smallest posters. )

Pundits can make their points without using the hyperbole of everything being tantamount to the end of the world. Pointing the finger of "Tyranny" for example has always been a cry to revolution. It's why we're free in the first place, after all. Nazi and Communist analogies are meant to cause fear, and fear is a powerful tool of propaganda.

I think we're all well aware of where the lines lie, even if most of us have definitions that vary a little.

There should not be any law passed or any rules made to restrict such imagery, but We the People ought to let them know that we do not approve of it any longer, and make it stick. Hold your nose and vote for the other guy once if it helps send the message.

I was watching Colbert a couple weeks ago, and they had these two guys who ran against one another for congress in some NE state,, Vermont maybe? They signed a pact before the race to keep it about the issues, to sling no mud.
And what do you know, they did it. And the Republican won. AND,, here's the kicker.. he's gay. The Dem refused to use that against him in any way, He said he didn't think it was relevant to his ability to govern.

So it's definitely possible.

~Bang

[mardi gras skin]

what is incendiary speech that could (or is intended to) incite acts of violence.

If you invoke Hitler, you're inciting violence. And worse, you lack imagination.

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bush-hitler-banner.jpg

http://sanseverything.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/obamahitler.jpg

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is getting a little scary. Agreed. Again.

I'll make you a deal. You call me on this stuff when I do it, respectfully, and I'll commit to seriously considering what you have to say. We'll adopt the Burgold Strategy. :)

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

[Jrew1223]

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

+1

[mardi gras skin]

Obama says the right are the enemy who must be punished,, that's pretty hard standard political fare... and unfortunately in this day and age should be followed with "So make them feel it at the ballot box" or something to make it crystal clear that they really aren't actual enemies

Palin can use the word "target".. I don't see anything wrong with the word. But when you then couple it with gun imagery and crosshairs, you start conecting dots for people.. whether it's intended to cause violence I very much doubt. But at the same time, it isn't too much of a stretch to see how someone might get that in their head.

What about Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's a little more graphic. Not sure how I feel about it.

[Burgold]

What about Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's a little more graphic. Not sure how I feel about it.

Personally, I think that language is borderline out of hand. I understand the nature of a "political fight" and how it's so easy to fall into that trap... I mean look at all the war imagery we use in football, but it shouldn't even be a fight, it should be a debate, an exchange, an argument... again, we need to stop looking at those who oppose us as our enemies. It just leads to... well, where we are today.

[Bang]

FTR, I'm not about talking about the past that drove this guy.
That's done. Nothing can be done about it.

I'm talking about the future. What Obama said or what Beck said or what Palin said is not as important as to what and how they say things from this point forward.

~Bang

[Predicto]

If you invoke Hitler, you're inciting violence. And worse, you lack imagination.

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bush-hitler-banner.jpg



Lol. That picture was taken right in front of my office.

I'm sorry, America. We have some irritating little rabble out here sometimes.

[Burgold]

So which one were you? The statue of liberty or the grim reaper?

[mardi gras skin]

I mean look at all the war imagery we use in football...

Good call. This "war" language is embarrassing in whatever field its used. Soft surburban Christians talking about their faith in warrior language, prima donna millionaire Kellen Winslow calling himself a "solja!", republicans and democrats "going to war."

These guys are no more "soldiers" than I am a Greek god. Its like their lives are so mundane they have to live in a fairy tale. The rhetoric isn't just inflammatory, its childish.

[Predicto]

So which one were you? The statue of liberty or the grim reaper?

The guy with the funny mustache, of course. Just ask NavyDave.

[shk75]

For me it is simple. Tell the truth. If you are not telling the truth and you know it than you do not belong in public office. If you are deliberately lying in order to get votes or sway the public than you do not belong in office. If you are in the media your job should be to tell the truth without spin. If you cannot do that get out of the media. I know this will never happen and it is unrealistic to expect this but hey that is what crosses the line for me.

[Mickalino]

Demanding your constituents to drive a tractor trailer rigged full of explosives into a nursing home is crossing the line.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I'm just going to use this as an example, because I know both Dems/Reps are guilty of 'crossing the line'.

I hate when people accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic or not supporting the troops.

I HATE when anyone fills a military spending bill with pork, then when someone votes against it because they don't want a million dollars going to studying cow farts the other party screams about how their opponent doesn't support the troops.

I mean honestly, there are so few people in this country who don't support the troops. Saying that I don't want to send them into harms way =/= not supporting them.

[mardi gras skin]

If you are deliberately lying in order to get votes or sway the public than you do not belong in office. If you are in the media your job should be to tell the truth without spin. If you cannot do that get out of the media. I know this will never happen and it is unrealistic to expect this but hey that is what crosses the line for me.

They do more harm with truths than they do with lies. Its a noble dream but they'll never stop spinning truths.

[Teller]

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

Same here. It's funny, you're one of the people I used to really enjoy discussing issues with. But anymore, it seems like we both go on the attack, it gets out of hand, we both get frustrated, and the dialogue stops. I realize I'm just as much to blame as you are; probably moreso. But I would like to get back to those sincere debates with you and others. I realize that's going to take me paying attention to what I'm saying, and how it comes across, more than anything. I'll look forward to it though. And thank you. :cheers:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Same here. It's funny, you're one of the people I used to really enjoy discussing issues with. But anymore, it seems like we both go on the attack, it gets out of hand, we both get frustrated, and the dialogue stops. I realize I'm just as much to blame as you are; probably moreso. But I would like to get back to those sincere debates with you and others. I realize that's going to take me paying attention to what I'm saying, and how it comes across, more than anything. I'll look forward to it though. And thank you. :cheers:

Agreed. I think the reason I go on the attack is because it's easier to put the other on the defensive, if you can get them to start defending their positions then I don't have to do it with mine. It's lazy and unproductive, and I am a guilty as anyone, and I'm tired of how it makes me feel and I'm tired of being part of the problem.

[Madison Redskin]

Expressly espousing violent action against the government, any group, or any individual crosses the line. Strongly implying that people should use violence to accomplish their political objectives also crosses the line. However, reasonable people will differ as to what constitutes an implicit call to violence. I also think that making a materially false statement about a material issue, or failing to disclose a material fact necessary to make a statement about a material issue not misleading, crosses the line. However, reasonable people will differ as to what is "material."

[Teller]

Agreed. I think the reason I go on the attack is because it's easier to put the other on the defensive, if you can get them to start defending their positions then I don't have to do it with mine. It's lazy and unproductive, and I am a guilty as anyone, and I'm tired of how it makes me feel and I'm tired of being part of the problem.

I'd love to see some kind of mass movement in this regard. The talking heads on either side spout their BS because it works. We eat it up. We get pissed off at the other side. We look at our neighbors as "them," instead of part of the collective "us." They drive that wedge. They make us choose one side or the other. And again, they do it, because WE allow it to work. If somehow, some-friggin-how we could see beyond it; see that our neighbors are struggling to make things better, just as we are....then I have to believe things improve.

It's like the old parable/story about the kid throwing the starfish back into the ocean. Maybe we won't change the world, or even the country. But we all talk about what ES "used to be." Well, let's be frank. The mods didn't change the tone here. The team didn't either. We did. And we can change it back if we so choose.

And I'm not going all touchy feely here. I don't expect to agree with you much. And I don't expect you to come over and sit around the fire pit and sing kumbaya with NavyDave, twa and I. But the WAY we disagree can, and I believe WILL improve. And hopefully that little ripple in the pond will be contagious. I hate to toot Burg's horn again, but how many knock-down, drag-outs does he get into? And we all know why that is.

[Destino]

When the words you use sound like something you'd go to war over, you'd better be ready to pick up a rifle and the situation had better call for it. Otherwise state your case honestly and speak to the american people like adults. I really don't think that asking too much. If you think a tax change would negatively impact the economy go with "this tax policy will cause a decrease in inestment and cost American jobs" as opposed to "these people are socialist and want to all our freedoms."

[Teller]

Expressly espousing violent action against the government, any group, or any individual crosses the line. Strongly implying that people should use violence to accomplish their political objectives also crosses the line. However, reasonable people will differ as to what constitutes an implicit call to violence. I also think that making a materially false statement about a material issue, or failing to disclose a material fact necessary to make a statement about a material issue not misleading, crosses the line. However, reasonable people will differ as to what is "material."

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that "reasonable" people will disagree all that much. Sure, you'll have the fringes that say "Obama/Bush IS acting like Hitler." But I don't consider them to be reasonable people. I think reasonable people have a fundamental understanding of right and wrong; of what's heated rhetoric, and what's a "call to arms." Like I said, where I run into some confusion is the calculated ramping up of emotions. Often commentators will push hot buttons, without saying anything that even hints at violence. Race is one of those issues for me. That's well documented. You show me a couple of Panthers in fatigues with billy clubs standing in front of a polling place, and I'm going to be furious. Beck knows that. Any member of this board knows that. Would I ever commit an act of violence over a story like that? No. But I consider myself fairly rational. Those "unreasonable" people though? I've got to wonder.

[Predicto]

I wish I had an answer to this question.

The problem is - heated rhetoric and demonizing your opponent is very, very effective in democratic politics. It always has been - ever since Pericles got the Athenians all riled up to kick some Spartan azz.

[Teller]

I wish I had an answer to this question.

The problem is - heated rhetoric and demonizing your opponent is very, very effective in democratic politics. It always has been - ever since Pericles got the Athenians all riled up to kick some Spartan azz.

I don't have any problem with making your opponent look like the wrong choice. And I fully admit, I'll grant a lot of leeway in the ways you try to do that. Honestly, outside of the current laws regarding slander and libel, and FCC standards, I'm pretty much an anything-goes guy, in terms of the law. I don't want major new restrictions on speech or the press. I guess this is more of a "what's OK to you" kind of question.

[Burgold]

One of the things I often complain about is that I think we love to underestimate people. Too often, it is thought that we need to dumb it down in order for people to get the message. I think they're wrong. I don't think you have to go to the lowest common denominator. If challenged, I think most will rise.

People rise when challenged. They meet you at the playing field you invite them too. You saw how well loved Tim Russert was on the right and left and by everyday folks when he passed. There is a reason he garnered that respect and love. Russert wasn't "nicety nice." He was tough, but was also respectful and civil. So is Lehrer. So, was the original 60 minutes crew. In fact, 60 minutes was the most popular news show of a generation because it was tough and smart. More, it was tough, smart, and professional. That's where a guy like IHOP seems to completely not get it. I couldn't believe how much he doesn't get as I caught up on what he was saying this morning.

You don't need to go to the mud to get people to listen. Sure, it may be easier to grab their attention. It may be quicker. Everyone loves sex and violence. However, ask someone what they favorite movie is and almost no one is picking a Steven Segall flick. They're choosing something that has substance. There's a reason why the polls were about even in the 06 election until Palin was nominated and then after two weeks Obama had a double digit lead and eventually trounced McCain. It was that the lowest common denominator may get your attention, but eventually you need substance. Obama won because he was seen as calmer, more reasoned, and more inspired (plus, everyone hated Bush). Palin's non stop attacks and over the top rhetoric actually pushed people away. Saying Obama was "paling around with terrorists" and that he had these "dubious connections" etc. etc. etc. didn't work in fact they eventually had the opposite effect.

So, why does it work with the media? I think it does and it doesn't. I think there is FOX fatigue and MSNBC fatigue. Even it's staunchest defenders seem to realize that they have to be on defense now. In quiet moments, they acknowledge that what they're defending is often outrageous, unfair, or even wrong. Still, identity politics is a very powerful tool.

I bet you if they would rise. Their audience would too. And we'd all be much better off for it.

(sorry for writing a book)

[LD0506]

Humor me, I am musing along with my morning coffee.

In reading this and the other thread started about the shootings in Az, I have to wonder if this might be just another symptom of a broader, more fundamental aspect of the world today.It is not just politics, or American politics, or even "the West", it is everywhere, and if that is the case it cannot be pinned on one person, one party or one society.

Here in America, a great many elements of what used to be seen as everyday life, normal functioning social interaction that everyone took for granted, have broken down, been replaced or been discarded. The old-fashioned (to the point of cliche) town square aspect of everyday life, where you talked with your neighbors and organized bees or barn-raisings,etc., simply doesn't exist anymore. For whatever reasons good or bad we have moved away from a model that depended on daily face-to-face interactions. People are cocooned in their cars, in their homes, in their jobs and lifestyles to the extent that we really don't have neighbors in the manner that we used to. If the subject is even discussed it is done with with condescension, with snarky little gibes about "Mayberry" or somesuch, but there is a great deal of very satisfying, very positive interaction in actually meeting and knowing the others around you.

Now, I am really not some post-tech Luddite wishing for a return to the Model A and walking down a dirt road with a bamboo pole over the shoulder, but my personal situation has caused me to reconsider exactly what is meant by neighbors, neighborhood and interactions in a social context. Grassroots social interaction of this type might have known about a Loughner, would have offered some channels for concerns to be expressed or touched his family in a manner to give them more options for facing their son's problems and defusing him before he reached a tipping point. Instead, we see quotes from several people that knew he was troubled, but didn't feel it their place to say or do anything.

Politics, which is ultimately all local, is an outgrowth of your neighbors. When that is Balkanized, fractured into Dem vs Repub, black vs white, young vs old, etc., etc., with no central unifying tenets or beliefs that remind us all that in the end we are supposed to be Americans and all on the same team no matter what the differences, then everyone views all others as "fringe", and rhetoric follows those perceptions.

[CrabR]

I think it crosses the line when you start referring to the opposition as the enemy, and equating them to the worst and most vile people in world history.
Agreed

I agree with you to much are you sure you are a Minister

[Burgold]

LD0506,

I think there is a fair amount of truth in that. I think are social skills are declining in general as are interactions become more with machines than people. You see it in the lack of conflict resolution skills. You see it in increased violence. That's one of the reasons I'm such a big advocate for play with children... especially imaginative play. Kids need time with kids without adult supervision to talk, play, goof around and get in trouble. That's a major way we learn how to handle the world, how to resolve conflicts, how to deal with the unexpected.

Anyway, I thought yours was a good side issue to why incivility seems to be getting worse.

[LD0506]

Well I don't see it as a side issue so much as a root cause in many ways. Call me naive but I believe it is harder to rob a neighbor you know by name, to hurl invective during a political cycle at someone you have had over for a BBQ or demonize the views and motives of people you talk to (and more importantly, listen to) on a daily basis. This place is a good example, there are seriously heated exchanges but there is also the whole Redskins fans community aspect as a central unifier that keeps it from ever spinning too far out of control.

My creed could be often boiled down to "Let go of the baggage, whatcha gonna DO about it?" The blame game gets us nowhere, and unless society, and that means you and me and everyone else, decides to cooperate on some solutions it is only going to worsen. We don't need grand answers to all our ills, how do you eat an elephant?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41014125/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

"The Journal reported that Smith did not think Randy Loughner had worked since his son was born, but raised the child while Amy Loughner had a steady job. Smith told the paper that he did not know the couple's last name until Saturday, despite having lived across the street since 1972. Despite this, he described himself as probably one of closest neighbors to Randy Loughner."

[Seabee1973]

The guy with the funny mustache, of course. Just ask NavyDave.

The statue of liberty does have a funny mustache

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Truthfully, the best thing would be if voters held politicians responsible for this rhetoric. Instead, we seem to fall for it (on both sides). If someone is using this type of rhetoric, they are probably not worth voting for, but it seems that negative campaigning, even at its worst, is what drives votes. Maybe its on us.

Same should go for television viewers. Beck and Olbermann should not be looked up to by conservatives and liberals. They are both *******s, and it would be nice if viewers turned them off instead of defended them.

[mardi gras skin]

Truthfully, the best thing would be if voters held politicians responsible for this rhetoric. Instead, we seem to fall for it (on both sides). If someone is using this type of rhetoric, they are probably not worth voting for, but it seems that negative campaigning, even at its worst, is what drives votes. Maybe its on us.

Same should go for television viewers. Beck and Olbermann should not be looked up to by conservatives and liberals. They are both *******s, and it would be nice if viewers turned them off instead of defended them.

I wonder how much of the problem belongs to the politicians and how much is on the media. I mean, if a politician accomplishes many unremarkable yet important tasks but the media only gives politicians air time if he says or does something sensationalistic, I can see the media steering politicians toward the absurd. Better ratings that way. In turn, they give less responsible politicians more free publicity than the boring, responsible politicians.

[Madison Redskin]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that "reasonable" people will disagree all that much. Sure, you'll have the fringes that say "Obama/Bush IS acting like Hitler." But I don't consider them to be reasonable people. I think reasonable people have a fundamental understanding of right and wrong; of what's heated rhetoric, and what's a "call to arms."

I don't know. I sometimes struggle with deciding whether certain statements "cross the line," in part because there's no bright line dividing right from wrong and in part because I view statements through my own biased eyes. I try to be fair to everyone, but I sometimes give "my side" more leeway than the "other side." I think that's true for everyone, except nihilists.

[Wrong Direction]

LD0506, nice post. I also think it's a bit of a side issue, but a great point nonetheless. I can certainly interact very well with my extremely liberal friends, and there's a certain common respect for each other. Of course, I had a falling out with a great friend years ago, mostly because he couldn't for one second accept anything but the most vulgar descriptions of George W. Bush, and he really lost his mind in anger over it. He basically channeled Olbermann in his daily life. It got ugly.

On this board, I think the community aspect of it can come into play more. However, I think this could happen in major media as well. I know the National Review and New Republic often have online "debates" between two adversaries on issues. They're very respectful. Fox News does this often, but doesn't moderate enough of the stronger opinions and obviously often moderates in favor of the right. Alternatively, CNN does it but doesn't have enough strong opinions, IMO; a very milquetoast offering.

My bottom line on the issue is that the divisive nature of politics has less to do with words like death panels, targets, enemies and "George Bush doesn't care about black people" than it does about the nature of Democracy and the never ending drive to motivate your electorate. Like it or not, the best way for the opposition to succeed in stopping what a very powerful president is doing is to resort to hyperbole. That's how you motivate people to rise up and kick the bums out of office.

George Bush was a murderer and torturer. Obama is a communist who supports death panels. This is a necessary tactic for the major political organizations to win, or to stop the other side from doing things they greatly despise. Afterall, if I can get 50% of America to think that Obama is either a) a socialist, b) anti-American, c) anti-business, d) will raise all of our taxes, e), f), g)...then I can get him out of power. Similarly for the left, it wasn't enough to say that Bush was wrong about the nature of Iraq's WMD and Al Quaida connections, etc. They had to make him out as a liar who wanted war above all else. It wasn't, frankly, supported by fact, but it sure did work to put Dems in power.

So, rather than bemoaning our Democracy, I think it's more important to understand the motivations behind it. An unmotivated electorate is powerless against the tyranny of government (right or left). Therefore, we'll always have people competing to motivate their folks better than the other side. Everyone should accept that this is the way it is, and absolutely call-out those who go over the line (as has obviously happened with Palin). The only way to moderate the speech is to remove the reward for that speech.

[Stadium-Armory]

I also think that some of the divisiveness is a by product of some of the policies and not necessarily the manner in which they are discussed. The republican party (and I won't use the word conservative, because I believe a true conservative believes in individual liberty) wants to restrict the ability of gays and lesbians to marry, or have a civil union that affords them the same legal rights as heterosexuals. By definition, this is exclusionary and creates an us-and-them paradigm. You can talk about it in a calm manner, without using vitriolic rhetoric, but just the idea of it says that "these people are different. so different that they shouldn't be afforded the same rights that you have". I think that's just as destructive as calling other people evil socialists, or fascist pigs. More so even.

[PokerPacker]

I think we're getting too worked up about what we're doing because of what some nut did. Political rhetoric did not attack these people, an unstable person did.

[Burgold]

I think we're getting too worked up about what we're doing because of what some nut did. Political rhetoric did not attack these people, an unstable person did.

I think this issue got greater light because of this event (and may have even been wrongly picked) but that the greater issue was one bubbling and boiling for a long time that a lot of people have been wanting to address. Our discource has become too heightened and hyperbolic. It too often does leave the realms of reason. The issues real... even if it's association with this event seems tenuous at best.

[Bang]

I think we're getting too worked up about what we're doing because of what some nut did. Political rhetoric did not attack these people, an unstable person did.

And I think that so long as we continue to brush off these nuts as just nuts with no possible other motivators, we're being ridiulously irresponsible.

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

And I think that so long as we continue to brush off these nuts as just nuts with no possible other motivators, we're being ridiulously irresponsible.

~Bang

even when its true and they are just nuts

[Bang]

even when its true and they are just nuts

Right.. sometimes they are just squirrely..
One thing over the weekend that bothered me is how fast the blame game evolved, and then devolved into finger pointing, rather than looking at it all as a whole.
At first there was quick blame, and then there was each side justifying their use of such rhetoric as if it could not possibly matter.
Kind of makes a dark day even darker, in my mind.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Something else to consider, the influence of the vitriol will always be nebulous. We will never get a shooter screaming on top of his lungs

"Rush Limbaugh told me you must die and so now you will!"

It will always be a third, fourth, fifth, eightieth underlying factor, but it will never be clear.

[Boss_Hogg]

I dislike Sarah Palin, in fact I can't stand her, but to blame her "rhetoric" or "cross hairs map" for the horrible tragedy in AZ is asinine.

If political or talking head rhetoric causes violence then there would be a hell of a lot more assassination attempts.

[mardi gras skin]

Krauthammer makes a point that I hadn't considered before. Violent imagery in politics is so pervasive in politics that it can't be rooted out. What's more, its beneficial in that politics actually serves as a surrogate for warfare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html

[Burgold]

Krauthammer makes a point that I hadn't considered before. Violent imagery in politics is so pervasive in politics that it can't be rooted out. What's more, its beneficial in that politics actually serves as a surrogate for warfare.

http://www.washingtonpos.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html

See, Krauthammer is one of the ones who's very, very partisan but couches his words and ideas repsonsibly. You always know what he'll say and whose position he'll back on a given topic and he will strenuously defend his guy to the point of ridiculousness, but he does it civilly.

[SnyderShrugged]

See, Krauthammer is one of the ones who's very, very partisan but couches his words and ideas repsonsibly. You always know what he'll say and whose position he'll back on a given topic and he will strenuously defend his guy to the point of ridiculousness, but he does it civilly.

once upon a time, I held him in very high esteem. I wish he could break out of his establishment, neo-con mold and think more critically about the similarities between the ideas that he holds true to and the ideas he rails against.

[Burgold]

once upon a time, I held him in very high esteem. I wish he could break out of his establishment, neo-con mold and think more critically about the similarities between the ideas that he holds true to and the ideas he rails against.

I feel the same way about Chris Matthews who I also once had very high hopes for, but has betrayed that belief. He could have been so much better. He's still better than many because he is smart, but his one-sidedness and inability to really wrestle with that limits him.

[mardi gras skin]

I feel the same way about Chris Matthews who I also once had very high hopes for, but has betrayed that belief. He could have been so much better. He's still better than many because he is smart, but his one-sidedness and inability to really wrestle with that limits him.

I agree on both counts. Chris Matthew and Charles Krauthammer both have the potential to be much better than they allow themselves to be. They are both smart and direct. If they could be less biased, I would feel more comfortable trusting them.

In the Krauthammer piece I just posted, he just had to throw in multiple useless jabs that I think take away from some good points. I wonder how many people never get to the good stuff because they've already tuned out after the snippy little comments.

[SnyderShrugged]

I wasnt sure if this was the best thread for this comment, but I didnt want to start a new one.

I saw something from the right leaning news sources today that irked me. The crowing and laughter towards Hillary Clinton taking a stumble was simply rude and dumb.

I hate the infantile nature of our yankees vs redsox style of 2 party system.

sorry.

/rant

[mardi gras skin]

I wasnt sure if this was the best thread for this comment, but I didnt want to start a new one.

I saw something from the right leaning news sources today that irked me. The crowing and laughter towards Hillary Clinton taking a stumble was simply rude and dumb.

I hate the infantile nature of our yankees vs redsox style of 2 party system.

sorry.

/rant

I have to admit...I chuckled with the Dems when Bush Sr. puked on the Japanese. :)

[nonniey]

I agree on both counts. Chris Matthew and Charles Krauthammer both have the potential to be much better than they allow themselves to be. They are both smart and direct. If they could be less biased, I would feel more comfortable trusting them.
.

I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased.

[Burgold]

I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased.

Because I would want them to studiously examine each issue or event and come up with an independent conclusion that outlines causality or solution based upon best evidence or best theory and not just dogmatically stick to a side because it is their side. If their findings support their side which it probably often would since they are philosophically predisposed to looking at issues from a certain angle that's fine, but if your starting point is "my side is right" a lot of the times your not going to get your car out of the ditch.

For instance, I like Obama generally. When he proposed closing Guantanamo I thought it was stupid and said so. It seemed a move done out of PR rather than a decision that was in the best long and short term interests of the United States. It was a bad way of dealing with the black eye given Gitmo by the Bush Administration.

[Bang]

I have to admit...I chuckled with the Dems when Bush Sr. puked on the Japanese. :)

I did, too. But more from it being an embarrassing human moment than anything political.

I agree with what SS is saying.

~Bang

[SWFLSkins]

Uncommon men are the only ones to find issues in common. It seems uncommon men are few and far between these days.

[mardi gras skin]

I don't understand. Why would you want a conservative/neo-conservative (Krauthammer) or a Liberal (Matthews) to not support the positions derived from their philosophical positions (ie be less biased?). As commentators they are supposed to be biased.

Everyone is biased. But if they are more interested in promoting their agenda than it communicating the truth as they see it, they've moved from commentators to spin artists. If they would just comment on what's going on instead of playing games of gotcha, they'd be legitimate sources for me to learn from. As it is, I have to assume they're trying to sneak one over on me.

Bottom line, if they want to influence me they're going about it the wrong way.

[nonniey]

Because I would want them to studiously examine each issue or event and come up with an independent conclusion that outlines causality or solution based upon best evidence or best theory and not just dogmatically stick to a side because it is their side. If their findings support their side which it probably often would since they are philosophically predisposed to looking at issues from a certain angle that's fine, but if your starting point is "my side is right" a lot of the times your not going to get your car out of the ditch.

For instance, I like Obama generally. When he proposed closing Guantanamo I thought it was stupid and said so. It seemed a move done out of PR rather than a decision that was in the best long and short term interests of the United States. It was a bad way of dealing with the black eye given Gitmo by the Bush Administration.

Krauthammer does do that, so I'm not sure what the beef is with him. He has never been lock step, he ripped the talking heads such as Hannity, Limbaugh and the Tea Party over several of their political moves during the primary season. He's done this for a few policy positions in the past as well.

[elkabong82]

Any language which portrays the opposition as evil and/or devoid of basic logic/common sense, crosses the line. It's dishonest, both sides do it, Fox News makes a living off of it.

Basically every single Beck segment has at least a few examples, his entire schtick crosses the line, IMO, because he is dishonest in his portrayal of the opposition and their motivations and attempts to villianize them while victimizing his side, instead of showing two sides with differing yet rational perspectives.

[Burgold]

Krauthammer does do that, so I'm not sure what the beef is with him. He has never been lock step, he ripped the talking heads such as Hannity, Limbaugh and the Tea Party over several of their political moves during the primary season. He's done this for a few policy positions in the past as well.

I'm mostly familiar with him on the Sunday morning political shows. There, I'd say 90% of the time he's a partisan shill though not nearly as bad as a Bill Kristol who revels in his one-sidedness and snarkiness. I could be wrong or it may be one of those perspective things in which what we see depends on the angle from which we are looking. I will agree he's better than many. Even as biased as he is there is usually thought and research behind his statements/opinions.

I also think that his physical condition may be making him grumpier. I just get the sense that he's in pain a fair amount of time.

[Predicto]

I think I have figured out my dividing line.

When you say your opponent is "wrong on an issue," you can do it in very strong, even angry terms. Then you are still debating policy.

When you say your opponent is an "other," or a danger, or a traitor, or anything else that delegitimizes them as a person, or rallies your side to stop listening at all to the merits of the issues - then you have gone over the line.

The first one leads to robust policy debates. The second one leads to ... today, I guess.

:whoknows: