The Rhetoric Of Violence

Our progressive friends deplore the vitriol in today's political discourse.  In fact Joan Walsh, for one, is so distressed by it that she has admirably promised to set an example by swearing off the rhetoric of violence.

Sadly, to my knowledge, no conservative leader has yet called for dialing back the rage on the right in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Sarah Palin sent condolences to Giffords' family, but said nothing about her unconscionable SarahPAC map putting 20 House members, including Giffords, in actual crosshairs for supporting healthcare reform, or her infamous Tweet telling conservatives "don't retreat, reload." Giffords' 2010 Tea Party challenger, Jesse Kelly, hasn't apologized for inviting supporters to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target for victory" and "remove Gabrielle Giffords from office." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle hasn't yet recanted her statement about the need to pursue "Second Amendment remedies" if political change lags behind the Tea Party's dreams.

Although there's no evidence Tea Party rhetoric had anything to do with Giffords' shooting, it can be no surprise that her father, when asked if his daughter had enemies, told the New York Post tearfully, "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."

Oops.  My bad.  I should have read past the headline.  I thought Walsh was eschewing the violent rhetoric, but I can see now that she just wants the other side to do it.

But seriously, nobody expects the lefties to tone it down in the least.  As Glenn Reynolds points out, progressives exuberantly leap to any pretext for calling Tea Partiers accomplices to murder. 

As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently.There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.

Aren't those casual accusations themselves the rhetoric of violence?

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

I think I get it, though.  Progressives are good.  Ask any of them.  They'll all assure you, progressives are good.  Anything said by any progressive, anywhere, is for the greater good, and therefore, is not and cannot be considered the rhetoric of violence.  That would be a contradiction in terms.  An impossibility.

They remind me of the English Chaplain in George Bernard Shaw's St. Joan.

'WARWICK. I am a soldier, not a churchman. As a pilgrim I saw something of the Mahometans. They were not so ill-bred as I had been led to believe. In some respects their conduct compared favorably with ours.

CAUCHON [displeased] I have noticed this before. Men go to the East to convert the infidels. And the infidels pervert them. The Crusader comes back more than half a Saracen. Not to mention that all Englishmen are born heretics.

THE CHAPLAIN. Englishmen heretics!!! [Appealing to Warwick] My lord: must we endure this? His lordship is beside himself. How can what an Englishman believes be heresy? It is a contradiction in terms.

CAUCHON. I absolve you, Messire de Stogumber, on the ground of invincible ignorance. The thick air of your country does not breed theologians.'

It's simply not possible for progressive rhetoric to be considered violent.

Update:  From Power Line,

Something like mass hysteria has broken out among liberals in the mainstream media. Among the victims are Joe Klein, Paul Krugman, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and CNN.

The hysteria is occasioned by the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords. It manifests in the condemnation of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, and conservatives in the media. They are all none too subtly held responsible for the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords by virtue of their resistance to the Democratic agenda.

According to lefty pundits, if you resist the Democratic agenda, doesn't it follow that you would be capable of murder?  Progressive logic from paragons of towering progressive intellect.

Comments

[CaptDMO]

What, exactly, defines the line between a Lone Wolf, basement dwelling,
"Hello Kitty of blogging", social retard, irrationally attempting a murder for attention- and the arbitrary "upgrade" to the more-plausable-for-conspiracy-accusation-"copy" assassination attempt?

How many (ie. North Korean)"Oops, I did it again!" does it take before "certain sources" (ie. Markos/George S.)and their third tier enablers,are simply universally discounted as irrelevant, and simply ignored?

Would THEY be subject to a fairness doctrine, and supervised by new FCC edicts, or somehow elicit "special exceptions" to progressive big ideas? Kinda like separate-but-equal liability for Universal Free "Health" Care?

By the way, Happy New Year y'all.

[Tom Bowler]

Thanks, Cap! Happy New Year to you, too!

...simply universally discounted as irrelevant, and simply ignored?

There will always be plenty of people eager to pay attention to the kind of money Soros throws around.