they're not all crazy!
Last week, via the Google Reader, I shared Matt Welch's article about the more strident reactions to some of the crazier conservative elements at health care town hall meetings. Welch argued that evocations of widespread and growing violent racist (and also nazi) sentiment from middle America are harmful exaggerations. I thought this was
( Read more... )
Now, onto the main point: how do you identify the leader(s) of a movement/group? There's room for argument, but I'd say a good first approximation is that the leaders are the individuals who the group identifies as speaking for them. And with that definition, I go back to that 538 article where self-identified Republicans (including leaners) volunteer Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich as the main people speaking for the Republican Party.
You know conservatives gone through a wormhole when Newt Gingrich is the voice of fairness and reason. [Apologies to Jon Stewart: the original quote is cited here]
The left has certainly had its violent revolutionaries (and if you're looking for historical examples of calling for violence, I think the left is probably more guilty -- to quote Allen Ginsberg, "You should have seen me reading Marx!") But my question: when, in our lifetimes, have the people who self-identify as Democrats said that someone like that spoke for the party? Actually, I've seen people on the far left become disenchanted with the Democratic party because it was opposed to things like eco-terrorism. (Although I've seen even more who were mad that the Democrats weren't nonviolent enough for them [ie, Democrats support having a standing army] -- after all, I did go to a hippie school).
A couple points about symbolic belief: I think you're largely correct, but the concern that I think many have is that if this crazy talk is coming from someone reputable, then it could be enough to push some crazy person into violent action because "if $x says so it must be true, and I gotta do something about it." Personally, I don't know that "official" leaders will be any more likely to cause crazy people to act than anyone else, and I think we should all watch our words when we get close to inciting violence.
I also don't think that not acting on a belief necessarily means that it is only a symbolic belief (as you imply with your aunt). I believe that the School of the Americas provided training that enabled torture and murder in Central America, but despite having several opportunities (back in the Clinton years, even) to join protests there, I never did. I believe that our government has allowed war crimes to be committed in the way we've run this "War on Terror", but I haven't done anything to put my money where my mouth is (except try to get Democrats in office, because I think they'd be better about it than Republicans). I'd resent those beliefs being called "symbolic," especially since I think they're pretty well backed up by the facts I've seen.
To be fair, I think what you're saying is that it is time for the self-identified Republicans to stop calling these nutjobs their leaders and to start listening to someone reasonable -- move the fringe back to the fringe. That sounds like a good idea to me, and I'm all for it (well, except that I'm a Democrat, and the nuttier the Republicans act, the less likely that the center will vote for them!)
Reply
Yes, I'd like to keep the fringe the fringe. I assume you're mostly kidding when you point out that keeping the Republicans nutty is good for Democrats, but I wonder if some people actually think this way. In the end, it's a very anti-social attitude. In a two party system, if you have one party that is just completely wild-eyed, there is nothing to encourage the more reasonable party to run a tight ship. Democrats would be better democrats if they had better Republicans to squabble with.
Reply
But really, even more than that I'd like to see the discourse get a little more reasonable, and to see more fair debate and less fear-mongering and falsehoods. I could imagine being governed by John McCain or Dick Lugar or Mitt Romney. I wouldn't vote for them (actually, I may have voted for Lugar one time, though probably not), but I wouldn't be devastated to see them in power. Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or (gods forbid) Sarah Palin, on the other hand....
Reply
Leave a comment