Will the Left call out its own?

[Zeitgeist]

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Liberal Protest of Gov. Walker's Budget Repair Plan

I'm sure you all see the irony no? When the shootings in Arizona were placed on the shoulders of the Right and their rhetoric, they conveniently left out the fact that their own does the same. What happens if someone takes a pot-shot at the governor of Wisconsin, will the left call out their own? Doubtful, as they see their own causes as sacrosanct and everyone else's as irrelevant. The duplicity and hypocrisy is nauseating.

[Vekseid]

I saw one sign with 'don't retreat, reload' and crosshairs (shown twice). Another was 'Death to Tyrants'. Those were the only two threatening images. If the former isn't a plant I think we all know what the reference is, however misguided.

The Egyptian protesters worked to great lengths to be peaceful, and demonstrate themselves as peaceful. Showing images equating Walker with Mubarak and considering them 'threatening' is amusing, at best.

While the Hitler card is of course annoying, at least the February 2nd, 1933 abolishment of trade unions is a matter of historical fact, and relevant as a means by which Hitler solidified power in Germany, unlike the lies the LaRouchies (anti-Semitic fascists themselves) spread about health care.

That said.

Neither of the people shown with the threatening signs is a public persona. Two, out of a hundred thousand protesters across the state, assuming those two signs aren't plants.

Even assuming the images are legitimate, it does not reflect the majority, or the presented opinion of any public persona, nor does it even target entire groups (Rush Limbaugh's 'leave some of them alive', and one protester with a sign that said "Exterminate All Liberals" with a gun on it).

Obviously, such language should be called out. If you are going to claim hypocrisy, however, you must first show equivalence. This video does no such thing.

[Valerian]

I live in Wisconsin.  These protests have been nothing but peaceful.

People are angry, yes.  There are, as Veks mentioned, some 100,000 people out protesting across the state.  Out of that many waving signs, you're going to find some that are more ruthless than they should be.  It's not a good thing, and if I had any say, I wouldn't let people carry such signs, regardless of any political affiliation, but you also have to look at the larger picture.  Had Mubarek been assassinated, for example, it would be a very different story.

I'd like to note that growing numbers of moderate Republicans are also coming out to protest, so not all of those signs are being held by liberals in any case.

[Sure]

Parallels to Nazis are easy enough to justify. Hitler did use social welfare as a way to placate the poor in an increasingly bad economy (Work Through Joy is a good example, Winterhilf another, and the Fascists and possibly Nazis actually did heavily subsidize certain medical personnel like midwives). I feel as if it's emotional language and that almost all comparisons are invalid regardless.

In my experience, neither side will call out its own. The two parties seem to be more factions with certain leanings than groupings of like-minded people, which is how you get RINOs and DINOs and bluedogs and whatever else you want to call them.

But if you want some bad signs from liberals, for equivalence, here's  a few bush era ones: Implies Bush is a criminal, insane, and needs to be arrested, Implies Bush is a Nazi, Death Threat, though perhaps not totally serious, still, Again, death threat.

[Vekseid]

WinterHilfe an example? A political fraud run in the name of a charity? Strength Through Joy was also targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, wasn't it?

Interesting that the t-shirt is actually from Michelle Malkin's site. It looks like something someone put together on Cafepress or Zazzle.

There is nothing wrong with claiming that Bush was not legitimately elected, that argument holds far more traction than the birther movement does, since he 1) Did not win the popular vote and 2) Was appointed by the Supreme Court rather than waiting for the Florida recount to come through. The man's character is not exactly in question - he all but outed himself as a narcissist in his book. The man had no business leading a nation.

Regardless, that shows no such equivalence. Where has a major left wing public figure joked about a politician's assassination, as Glenn Beck has of Nancy Pelosi? Where has a major left wing public figure approvingly noted the mass execution of conservatives, as Rush Limbaugh has of liberals? Where has a major left wing figure called for the free speech of conservatives to be silenced, as Limbaugh recently did of liberals (in addition to wanting to strip away their right to own guns)? Where has a major left wing figure called for 'second amendment remedies'? Name one major left wing figure who declared, of an opposing media organization, 'They are, of course, Nazis.'.

Seriously. I'm interested in the answer. Name one. And then we can start to approach the concept, but one example is not going to be nearly enough.

[Zakharra]

here has a major left wing public figure approvingly noted the mass execution of conservatives, as Rush Limbaugh has of liberals?

I wasn't aware that Rush Limbaugh has said that. That sounds more like something Michael Savage would say.

[Sure]

Winterhilf was admittedly 'charity' the way zakat is 'voluntary' but the fact that they were giving necessities to the poor to curry favor is the basis of the program. Strength Through Joy was not targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, it provided free or heavily subsidized vacations to German Workers and was a copy of a similar Fascist program.

Firstly, none of them claim solely that Bush was not legitimately elected. Secondly, declaring the process illegitimate and claiming he did not win the popular vote are two entirely different things. And you've just stated an opinion, about Bush's character and about his qualifications to lead. They are not facts nor particularly relevant, I would think.

“When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,” -Democratic Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear

"Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

The two I got from Google, joking about killing and assassination of the President. I've not heard any of the things you've heard Limbaugh say, but then again I don't listen to him. I don't listen to Democratic talkshows either, though. And Steve Cohen recently called the Republicans Nazis (or rather said they used Nazi-like tactics) which is the last one, not a news outlet but I think it still counts.

You're right, though, one example doesn't matter. For either of our positions. We'd need a meta-analysis and I don't think either of us have the time or resources to perform one. Until one is made, we're running off of opinions and anecdotal evidence.

[Vekseid]

I wasn't aware that Rush Limbaugh has said that. That sounds more like something Michael Savage would say.

His quote is: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Winterhilf was admittedly 'charity' the way zakat is 'voluntary' but the fact that they were giving necessities to the poor to curry favor is the basis of the program. Strength Through Joy was not targeted at bringing in revenue from foreigners, it provided free or heavily subsidized vacations to German Workers and was a copy of a similar Fascist program.

Firstly, none of them claim solely that Bush was not legitimately elected. Secondly, declaring the process illegitimate and claiming he did not win the popular vote are two entirely different things. And you've just stated an opinion, about Bush's character and about his qualifications to lead. They are not facts nor particularly relevant, I would think.

The overall tone here is discussing the applicability of calling Republican/Rupert Murdoch tactics fascist versus the applicability of calling progressive/liberal tactics fascist. You explicitly pointed out that the intent of Nazi social programs was to appease the poor - and they generally never materialized in any real form in the first place, for example.

And Bush revealed his narcissism in claiming that the low point of his presidency was, of all things, being called out by Kanye West. No sense of responsibility for any of his failures - but heaven help him if his feelings were hurt. Carter hurt his feelings, too.

“When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,” -Democratic Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear

This is wishing disfigurement on someone at the least, which I will certainly concede was very, very common on the left. I don't know if it was as common or as bad as what Pelosi got, however. The hate Republicans had for that woman was mindblowing. Maybe because she was actually effective.

"Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

I'm trying to find the actual source for this. I can only find right wing sites claiming it but - oddly - none of them show the video.

One claims it is from 2006, another from 2004. At least in the former case, Kerry could simply call it a figure of speech by way of assuming the presidency - since little timing context is provided on the sites where I find it.

The two I got from Google, joking about killing and assassination of the President. I've not heard any of the things you've heard Limbaugh say, but then again I don't listen to him. I don't listen to Democratic talkshows either, though. And Steve Cohen recently called the Republicans Nazis (or rather said they used Nazi-like tactics) which is the last one, not a news outlet but I think it still counts.

You're right, though, one example doesn't matter. For either of our positions. We'd need a meta-analysis and I don't think either of us have the time or resources to perform one. Until one is made, we're running off of opinions and anecdotal evidence.

I was being a bit facetious with that. It's mostly that the left has been very slow to accuse Fox, Murdoch, Ailes, and Republicans of fascism, though many have cited proto-fascist elements such as anti-intellectualism, belief in the use of force to gain political power, citing criticism as 'anti-American' when they have power, a strong jingoistic streak, and so on. Then the LaRouchies came around and beat everyone to the punch, and the right wing picked up on it.

I'm not saying that they don't genuinely believe it. One authoritarian trait is to assume that everyone else thinks like you, so they genuinely fear a strong, charismatic leader who is not 'one of them', because America is struggling right now and struggling people are very vulnerable.  "We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." - FDR

So they also see the equivalence.

[Callie Del Noire]

There is a bit of 'wish they were dead' on both sides. I find it interesting, to use a lesser example, that there was less moral outrage in the media when this sort of thing showed up:



Than this:


(This sort of thing drew like 2 weeks of commentary from the various groups on TV when they first started appearing)


Point of the matter. Each side has idiots that take things too far. Always have. Always will.

Poor Congresswoman Gifford that was shot by a 'potential conservative crank', and the poor college dean who was stabbed by someone aiming for the conservative governor who was speaking there.

LOTS of stupid, banal people.

[Noelle]

Pretty sure that last Obama poster was made by a supporter rather than a Republican, as a response to all of the "Obama is a socialist/fasicst/nazi/marxist/Muslim/communist/etc." allegations. It would surprise me that anyone would take offense to it as being something slanderous against the president, given it kind of fires back at those who throw out those kinds of terms freely and satirizes it. The first one is just stupid :( The only nazis are nazis.

[Callie Del Noire]

Pretty sure that last Obama poster was made by a supporter rather than a Republican, as a response to all of the "Obama is a socialist/fasicst/nazi/marxist/Muslim/communist/etc." allegations. It would surprise me that anyone would take offense to it as being something slanderous against the president, given it kind of fires back at those who throw out those kinds of terms freely and satirizes it. The first one is just stupid :( The only nazis are nazis.

I put that one out because I couldn't find the one that that caused the 2 weeks of discontent and hate on TV. I think that outrage for either side being represented as Hitler should keep them from doing it to the other side but common sense isn't as common as you'd like.

[Vekseid]

I think it was largely ignored because the Bush protests were largely ignored, in general - even though they were far, far larger than anything the Tea Party has ever put together.

[Jude]

It's only my perception based on a time when I was less involved in politics than I am today (because I was younger), but my recollection agrees with Vekseid about how much attention was paid to the anti-Bush crowd versus the Tea Party.  It seemed to me that the media was largely indifferent to them, often painting them as irrelevant or uninteresting.  Even the worst accounts of the Tea Party that are full of wild accusations don't downplay their passion and involvement.  If I had to describe both in once sentence based on the societal perception at large...

Bush Protesters - "Young people who don't have a clue."

Tea Partiers - "Well-to-do white people who are overreacting to perceived tyrannical threats with shades of racism."

As far as whether or not the left will call out their own goes, the answer is obvious.  Some will, some won't.  I doubt that anyone but the most committed liberals and conservatives believe that their side has a monopoly on integrity.  Anyone who falls into that group believes in the superiority of their ideals to a dangerous level anyway:  they're the people holding the signs the rest of us should be condemning.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that is about it.. with a faint hint of :

Bush Protestors -"Exercising their constitutional rights with restraint'.

Tea Partiers - "Dangerous whack jobs who are racists and one step short of militia memberships"

[Vekseid]

Not really. It was an active attempt of marginalizing them. If you listened to the radio during that period, the only thing you heard about the protests was how they were obstructing traffic.

[Callie Del Noire]

My favorites were some of the comments about the early accusations of fraud by ACORN. It was all a frame job by the conservatives to keep the downtrodden from getting the right to vote.

[Zakharra]

His quote is: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals, leave enough around so we can have two on every campus; living fossils, so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Actually kill or defeat? I have listened to him for years and he comes across more as using the  system to electorially defeat them, rather than kill them off.  It is possible he weas taken out of context? somethng I know both sides are very good at doing. The sound-byte generation.

Now Savage, that man can get hot and heated at the microphone.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've never SEEN or HEARD Limbaugh saying that.. BUT it is quite likely he'd say something like that or put it in one of his books. It sounds like the stupid self important sort of rhetoric pundits on both sides say.

I agree with a  lot of folks, the President among them. That we need to tune things down and relax this sort of thing.

[Vekseid]

Actually kill or defeat? I have listened to him for years and he comes across more as using the  system to electorially defeat them, rather than kill them off.  It is possible he weas taken out of context? somethng I know both sides are very good at doing. The sound-byte generation.

Now Savage, that man can get hot and heated at the microphone.

The source and context is here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,163548,00.html

It comes from a similar line he gave at a speech to Republicans the year before, I believe, but I can't find that instance.

[Remiel]

I've never SEEN or HEARD Limbaugh saying that.. BUT it is quite likely he'd say something like that or put it in one of his books. It sounds like the stupid self important sort of rhetoric pundits on both sides say.

I agree with a  lot of folks, the President among them. That we need to tune things down and relax this sort of thing.

Callie, I would argue that we conservatives need to stand up and say, "these men do not represent us.  They do not speak for us.  They are talking heads, and nothing more, trying to stir up controversy in order to create ratings.  Please do not listen to them, or take seriously anything they have to say."

[Zeitgeist]

For sure it would have been wiser to use the word 'defeat' rather than 'kill'. But we aren't justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, right? Right?

Anyhow. If we are saying, that by extension, Limbaugh shares responsibility for any wacko perceived as a 'conservation' wacko, who goes out and commits murder, well then so too will be anyone else who uses such charged language. 'Kill the Bill' anyone? It wouldn't be much of a leap for an already deranged person to make, that if you kill a Wisconsin Republican Representative, who effectively 'Kill the Bill'.

You can't have one set of rules for one group, and then cast them aside when they are no longer convenient. You don't get to change the rules just because you agree with the underlying cause.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie, I would argue that we conservatives need to stand up and say, "these men do not represent us.  They do not speak for us.  They are talking heads, and nothing more, trying to stir up controversy in order to create ratings.  Please do not listen to them, or take seriously anything they have to say."

Agreed. I've been saying it.. though I don't consider myself that much of a conservative. I'm not against big government, I'd rather be a Reagan style 'grow the economy' type that despises the exportation of jobs out of the country. I'm pro-choice, support the death penalty and think that we are coddling our people into a country of whiners and complainers. I think we need to bring back tax breaks for companies that work to grow our economy, reinstate ones for R&D, and slap anyone who thinks the only way to 'grow business' is to deregulate. A studied cost-benefit approach to regulating things would have stopped some of the stupidity that we suffered though in the last few years.

Relying on blowhards like Limbaugh and outright liars like Anne Coulter does nothing to finding the direction we need to go. Neither of the two pundits I mentioned have done little to moderate the behavior and attitudes of the public. Pundits and speakers should be a focusing point. With folks like them around, civility is rapidly dying in the media. I'm sure with two minutes of thought we could find someone just as toxic on the liberal side.

Sadly it's easier to find the obnoxious than the true speakers that we need to build something better out of our country.

[Vekseid]

For sure it would have been wiser to use the word 'defeat' rather than 'kill'. But we aren't justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, right? Right?

Of course not. But your first post presents an air of equivalence. None of the major right wing media personalities avoid this sort of language - Palin, Bachman, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, O'Reilly. When Nancy Pelosi asked for the rhetoric to be toned down after Beck and O'Reilly -both- talked about her being assassinated, she was simply mocked for it.

What does it say, if this sort of thing gets the attention of Maddow, Maher, Kos, et. al and they call this out? It doesn't make things even. It means that the voices currently representing the right are vastly morally inferior, and you acknowledge that.

If you want to stop those sorts of comparisons, you need to actively support those voices who do call out their rhetoric - David Frum, for example. He's already nearly as popular as Ann Coulter is. It's sad, in a way, that his site is barely bigger than Elliquiy. But amusing just how far Coulter has fallen.

Anyhow. If we are saying, that by extension, Limbaugh shares responsibility for any wacko perceived as a 'conservation' wacko, who goes out and commits murder, well then so too will be anyone else who uses such charged language. 'Kill the Bill' anyone? It wouldn't be much of a leap for an already deranged person to make, that if you kill a Wisconsin Republican Representative, who effectively 'Kill the Bill'.

Limbaugh is only one voice and the most moderate of the six I listed above.

If you are going to make such a claim (regarding language like 'Kill the Bill', which you know did not originate in Wisconsin), it would instead be more pertinent to look at and act upon the sort of language that influences people like Scott Roeder, the Hutaree, Richard Andrew Poplawski and so on. There are common threads behind right wing violence in America - typically, the lies that drive them. Especially when they are lies about specific groups or people.

You can't have one set of rules for one group, and then cast them aside when they are no longer convenient. You don't get to change the rules just because you agree with the underlying cause.

Of course not.

Which makes me wonder why you demand that the Left be held to a higher standard than the Right.

The methods presented in Egypt will most likely be adopted here in the United States, only better and far more difficult to counter. Meaning yes, stressing nonviolence and establishing friendships will become a key factor in the progressive movement's strategy here. If that happens - by definition making a very strong statement against threats of violence or allusions to it - where does that put you?

[itsbeenfun2000]

As of yesterday they had 40000 protesters in Madison. Nine arrests a few days ago when some protesters got to close to a restricted area and wouldn't move. As of today the protests have been peaceful. Here is my question. Is it right for someone to take away the rights of a few to benefit the many? That is exactly what Walker is doing.

[Vekseid]

Walker isn't trying to benefit the many. If this were just a resolution requiring that union workers pay their pensions and health care benefits, this would not have generated such a firestorm. Walker would still be called out as a hypocrite for creating the deficit, certainly.

But removing the right to collective bargaining and requiring recertification each year is what has lit this fire, though Walker obviously is avoiding that part of the argument - because it paints him as the corporate shill he is. It's an attempt to destroy public unions in Wisconsin. I've had my own, personal grievances against unions in general, but when employers are limited, collective bargaining is the only peaceful means by which employees can correct that market deficiency. At the dawn of the 20th century, when companies had a monopoly on employment in certain regions, they enacted a system - company scrip - that was in fact wage slavery. A popular song (Sixteen Tons) was written about it.

1) You're not paid in cash, but rather in company scrip.
2) You can only spend scrip in the company store.
3) You're not paid enough scrip to cover your needs, so you go in debt to the store.

And if you try to struggle against it, the company is not above murdering your wife and children.