My first thought was to post this in liberal. But the report Krugman is dicussing has been discussed on 4.0.
Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 11, 2009
Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.
But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.
There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.
Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.
And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.
Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).
But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.
It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.
Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.
What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”
And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1
Derek Lam
Barbour
Tommy Hilfiger
If people truly believe in personal responsibility, they would acknowledge that people have to take responsibility for what they say, and how it may influence others.
1They count on that influence to be strong when they're rallying support for protests, urging people to lobby congress, or for an election - but try to deny it exists when it fuels negative actions.
"They count on that influence to be strong when they're rallying support for protests, urging people to lobby congress, or for an election - but try to deny it exists when it fuels negative actions.
2I don't watch Fox News, but I do listen to a lot of conservative talk radio and I agree that many of the things they say are hateful and the tone is vicious. But I watched a couple of hours of MSNBC last night and I must say the message and tone coming from those commentators was equally awful. It reflects so horribly on the American audience at large that hate (both from the right and the left) is so acceptable and, to some, enjoyable.
I think it might be easier for a person like me, whose views aren't reflected by Fox or by MSNBC, to see the nastiness in both.
3I think this piece is funny because you can do like Mad Libs with it and just replace conservative with liberal and all the conservative names and wacko quotes with liberal names and wacko quotes and the point would be the same.
Not very powerful, well thought out or well written.
4"Not very powerful, well thought out or well written."
5But the 'let's kill people we disagree with' blog was?
To be fair, Haus clearly stated that she posted it because it was an unknown perspective, and not because she agreed with the points.
6I think you will find hate and ridiculousness on both sides of the political spectrum.
7Not even a little bit, Steph.
8First of all I take anything Paul Krugman says with a dump truck full of salt. IMO he is no more objective in his views from the left as Sean Hannity is in his views from the right. He's just the same problem only on the other side. Both of them are notoriously guilty for taking their ideological opponents out of context for the sake of boasting their own view. That's not news it's story telling allah their ideology. Which is ridiculous to me because there is more than enough genuine points of disagreement to pivot a good debate on but these idiots can't resist the temptation to misrepresent each other. Meanwhile unbeknown-st to the general public we're watching an intellectual vendetta filtered in with our news.
The left just needs to stop crying and get to work. Liberal minded media still holds a vast majority of the media market. My opinion is to disengage in the over the top ideological conflict which will always be a stale mate, there will be no winner and reengage in genuine delivery of information. And remember debate should always orbit genuine points of fact and those facts should not have to be dissolved for your opinions sake before they get to the public mind.
As for right wing extremists yes they do share general conservative thought with all conservatives but IMO we can not blame a sane minded civil acting passionate conservative if an extremist agrees with them up to a certain point and then branches off into lunacy. That's what makes them an extremist they have a screw lose they're mentally ill.
As for inciting violence like I said on that post about those idiot radio show hosts who literally spoke about committing violent acts against transgender children, that is inciting violence. However, in the case of FOX since he used them as an example. When you have people who may be passionately against your view and heatedly so if their doing nothing more than ultimately disagreeing with you and making it a point to say that they do not support extremist acts and that people are wrong who commit them. That is not inciting violence as much as we may disagree with their ideology. That is inciting civility when you can passionately disagree with some one no matter how up set it may make you while denouncing conservatives who would do anything more than disagree themselves.
9I didn't say she agreed with the blog's points. But to have posted it, and to say he uses logic in his arguments, is to suggest that, as opposed to Krugman, that little piece of hate is very powerful, well thought out or well written.
10Exactly, Martini. I dislike this article because, while it has valid points, it is purposely blind to the exact same despicable behavior on the left. If you're going to call out hateful and possibly dangerous speech, it seems pretty hypocritical to ignore it just because it aligns with your political philosophy.
11And very well said, Hypno.
12I don't get MSNBC. Not sure I am missing anything. What kind of stuff have you seen on there, Mich?
13What did you hear on MSNBC that you felt crossed the line from political commentary to 'hate speech' equal to the examples Krugman gives?
14I've never watched MSNBC, either...what did you see there, Mich?
And I second the "well said, Hypno"!!
15I just can't believe someone really believes you can hang a deranged bigot around the neck of conservative infotainment commentators. And, in fact, I know a reasonable person doesn't believe that, so it's a little disgusting to see Krugman and the middle-of-the-road New York times using murder victims for political leverage.
16Off topic but I am supposed to get MSNBC. Very annoying actually. During the election there was a Clinton/Obama debate airing only on MSNBC and I couldn't watch it. I had to see it streaming online in crappy video. I called Comcast and they were very "Gee I don't know" about it and told me to contact MSNBC which is silly. If it is part of my plan and my neighbors get it, than it isn't MSNBC's problem it is Comcast's!
But now that there are no more debates, I really don't care anymore. Although I have heard wonderful things about the Rachel Maddow show.
17Steph, I've only watched one full episode of Rachel Maddow's show, and in it she called Justice Scalia "evil". It doesn't get much more hateful than that. But, like I said, I almost never watch the channel so I can't give you many specific examples. Rather, I'd say that their tone is hateful. Like Hypno was saying, their "commentary" goes beyond simple political disagreement to plain contempt. And sometimes beyond contempt to outright hate. You can hear it in their tone of voice and in the positions they take (for example the way they talked about Sarah Palin's defense of her daughters against Letterman as if she were the aggressor).
They don't analyze issues past the point of "is it conservative? Alright, then I'll mock and denigrate it". Their commentary isn't careful or thoughtful, it's reactionary and angry.
18I think the important thing to remember is if you watch a commentator your watching the news clearly through their opinion which still should hold some allegiance to objectivity but in some cases as we see nightly some can not resist the tempation to go over the top.
19I haven't heard any facts that lead me to believe that Scott Roeder, ever heard O'Reilly talk about Dr. Tiller. And it is highly disingenuous to insinuate that James von Brunn's actions had absolutely anything to do with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. The guy had a felony conviction, from decades ago, for storming the Federal Reserve headquarters to kidnap board members so he could have a platform to tell everyone about his hate for Blacks and Jews. I'm pretty sure Glenn Beck didn't talk him into that one.
The connection here is just absurd.
20Sorry Mich, but yeah, it does get more hateful than that, there's a dead doctor in Kansas to prove it.
If you're going to argue that everybody does something, you've got to do better than come back with 'well, their tone is hateful.'
21Steph, it's not shocking to me that you don't see the hate coming from Olbermann and Maddow.
But we're not comparing Maddow to the man who killed Dr. Tiller. I'm comparing Maddow to other commentators. They say "baby killer", she says "evil", they're both equally hateful, and neither of them actually have any proven link to a real murderer.
22"while it has valid points, it is purposely blind to the exact same despicable behavior on the left."
The comparison is O'Reilly from Krugman's article and your bringing up Maddow. Where is Maddow's language equal to O'Reilly, Beck and the rest of the gang of idiots?
23You say it is the exact same despicable behavior on the left.
Maybe this is just me, but calling someone "evil" doesn't really mean that's hateful. Suggesting that a fist bump between Barack and Obama has shades of "terrorism"? THAT is hateful and petty. And just really, really pathetic.
24I will give credit where credit is due, but until someone on MSNBC starts talking about the hate mail they get, a la Shepard Smith, then I will truly believe that it's just as bad on both sides of the spectrum.
25(note I said *just as bad*--yes there are degrees, IMO)
26Steph, I already told you, Maddow calls people "evil". That's just as hateful as calling somebody a "baby killer". You don't see that because you agree with her.
And Em, in what world is "evil" not hateful?
27Here's the thing--people call other people "evil" all the time. I call Ann Coulter "evil", hell, a lot of people do, and I don't exactly hate her. To me, hate is a lot stronger than just a word like "evil". Hate is being motivated to do something like kill someone else. I just, I don't know, don't like her. It's kind of like the word "love"--do you really believe that everyone who says something like "I love her to death!" really loves that person? A lot of it just seems fake to me, and calling someone "evil" really doesn't equate hateful with me. Just my opinion.
28...and just because I don't agree with someone politically doesn't mean that I can't see whether or not they have valid points. Maybe if Maddow called lots of people "evil" all the time, or suggested that McCain kissing his wife was a terrorist act, or somehow tried to twist the death of Tiller into something it wasn't, or heard about a lot of hate mail going to CNN and MSNBC...then I could totally agree with you about the rhetoric on both sides being equally frightening.
29*should have said if Maddow called people other names as well. Do not like the lack of an edit button.
30Em, just because you've become desensitized to the word "evil" doesn't make it not hateful. And she certainly used it in a hateful way. But anyway, I think a lot of anti-abortionists have become desensitized to the word "murder" just like you've become desensitized to "evil". They say "abortion is murder", but I don't think they all actually think of it like they think of a murder (some probably do, but not most).
But anyway, like Organic said, it doesn't matter how hateful they all are, because there's absolutely no concrete connection between O'Reilly or Limbaugh and Von Brunn. He was crazy and racist and trying to kill people long before O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Obama's presidency.
31Em, Maddow calls people plenty of other awful names, but "evil" stuck with me because it was so outrageous.
32Oh and one last thing--I don't really take anything Rush Limbaugh or any of those conservative blowhards say, either. They like ratings, too, so whatever gets people riled up.
33So that's it, 'evil' equals O'Reilly calling a doctor an executioner and comparing him to Hitler? 'Evil' equals Glenn Beck claiming FEMA's building concentration camps?
34'Evil' equals Beck pretending to douse a taxpayer in gasoline and saying "President Obama why don't you set us on fire?"
I'm reading these comments on a few cocktails, makes a difference, I wont' respond...LOL! I'm off to the White Horse...oldest gay bar in the country by the way over 75years. Chow! and no I'm not driving.
35I posted the other article for the reasons Mich stated. It may not have been well thought out, but at LEAST it was original which this POS OpEd is NOT. This guy wants go off about the hate on the right and completely ignore the hate on the left, thats fine but its stupid and he's stupid for being so blinded by his own ideology to lose any sembelance of rational thought.
I've watched Maddow, Olbermann, listened to Air America, Moore, Garafolo, and yes, those people are JUST AS hateful as anyone on the right. To suggest otherwise is just like putting your hands over your ears and singing "lalalallala i can't hear you!"
And it makes me laugh that people think conservatives had anything to do with this Holocaust museum shooting considering that the shooter had the Weekley Standard in his sights and listed OReilly as a bad guy on his website. But you know, no need to mention those pesky "facts" when we're too busy demonizing those with whom we disagree.
36Oh! This also makes me laugh because its basically saying that profiling white men is ok but you know, profiling arabs or muslims is and always has been wrong.
37And of course there is the laughability at his suggesting that Brunn is a "right wing extremist" when in actuality he had more in common with out there liberals than out there republicans.
38"And of course there is the laughability at his suggesting that Brunn is a "right wing extremist" when in actuality he had more in common with out there liberals than out there republicans."
Come on Haus you can do better than this!
39"Oh! This also makes me laugh because its basically saying that profiling white men is ok but you know, profiling arabs or muslims is and always has been wrong."
This is just a lie. Who's profiling random white men? I don't hear rational white men calling other individuals murderers or comparing a law abiding doctor to NAMBLA.
40I watch Olberman and Maddow on occasion and I have never heard the kind of language and accusations used by SOME on Fox and by SOME right wing talkers. Even Krugman acknowledges in his op-ed piece that not everyone at Fox is as vile as Beck and O'Reilly. The hateful over the top language is coming from the right. The dehumanization of individuals is coming from the right.
41"It may not have been well thought out, but at LEAST it was original which this POS OpEd is NOT"
The article you posted was not 'original' - people have been trying to justify murders they'd like to commit forever.
You're fine with profiling white men as long as they're in anti-war or anti-corporate groups. It doesn't matter what addresses the shooter had with him - the shooter knew he was likely to be stopped at the first site so he went to - and killed someone at - the Holocaust Museum.
"I've watched Maddow, Olbermann, listened to Air America, Moore, Garafolo, and yes, those people are JUST AS hateful as anyone on the right. To suggest otherwise is just like putting your hands over your ears and singing "lalalallala i can't hear you!"
42Mich couldn't defend her similar statement with actual examples, maybe you can.
Steph, you are oversimplifying what I said and ignoring the larger points. Again, you and liliblu are not going to admit or recognize the hatefulness on the left because you agree with it. It's pretty clear that there are people on both sides of the spectrum that see wisdom and thoughtfulness when commentators agree with them, and hate speech when the commentators disagree with them. That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion, but to those of you who want to deny that the likes of Maddow and Olbermann only cheapen the political discourse in this country with their angry, hateful words, I say that you are part of the problem you're complaining about with this article.
43Mich, you didn't even come up with a statement - you say Maddow called Scalia evil but you offere no actual quote so you're claiming a generalization equals actual hate quotes.
44No one's claiming the left isn't capable of ham-fisted political commentary and doesn't name call. That's bad. What we're talking about though, is taking it further, personalizing the insults and demonizing people. Cheapening political discourse isn't the same as inciting violence and that's what's going on here.
OMFG what the "conservative" news is saying sounds no different than the sh*t being thrown around at Bush. Good Lord almighty. Would the US please grow a pair and stop whining that people are being mean to Obama! Dang, we could be harder.
45Watch out the boogie man conservative is goona get you !
46
47The shooter was anti-Christian, anti-neocon, he hated Bush, McCain and OReilly and he was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. This is not a right wing extremist. People seem to think he must be right wing because he was racist, there's plenty of racist people on the left but sometimes that racism is more socially acceptable, so I guess that gets a pass.
I think its stupid to lay the blame on any commenter, left or right for the actions of a nutjob. But if thats how Krugman et al want to play the game, then fine, let's play that game but be HONEST about it.
The DHS report promoted profiling those with right wing politics and returning vertans. I'm just saying that if the left is all about profiling now as Krugman likes to suggest by calling the analysis "prescient" then FINE, let's profile! We didn't hear much about the Muslim that shot up the Army recruitment office. Why is that? Ohhhh because we're not supposed to profile them. It's ok to profile right wingers and returning military, but not ok to profile anyone else.... Apparently thats not "prescient". Hmmm, I wonder why??? It's BS. It's standard fare for people who are blinded by their own ideology. Profile those I don't agree with. Demonize and blame those I don't agree with. Blah blah blah. The story is the same. And its just as stupid and worthless as it was the first time around.
And again, the hate is NOT just on the right. That is just bias speaking.
Here are some hate filled quotes from the left:
- USA Today's Julianne Malveaux, spat out this crudity about Justice Clarence Thomas, a fellow black: "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
- The Arkansas Times wrote that "Kenneth Starr is cunning, ruthless, and about as well mannered as Heirich Himmler."
- Then there was Los Angeles Times "frequent contributor" Karen Grigsby Bates, who said of Sen. Trent Lott: "Whenever I hear Trent Lott speak, I immediately think of nooses decorating trees. Big trees, with black bodies swinging from the business ends of nooses."
- How about Garafalo calling all tea bag protestors "racists" and saying it was all about "hating a black man", "this is nothing but a bunch of tea bagging rednecks" and then going on to talk about how their brains are smaller and Olberman doing bobble head agree? You don't think THIS is hate?
- There is a liberal writer Larry Johnson who wrote: "Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out."
- Micheal Moore: "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate."
- Remember when the Daily Kos ran that lovely cartoon of Scalia dressed as a Nazi? I suppose thats not hate?
- How about HuffPo blogger Geiger who wrote on Memorial Day of last year a piece titled "Dead Troops Remembered by President Who Had Them Killed" with this lovely snippet "Make no mistake about it, George W. Bush is as responsible for the deaths of those men and women as if he himself had fired the bullet or set the IEDs that ended their lives."
You've gotta be out of your mind if you don't think those are hate filled. And thats just a small sampling of what I found in a 2 minute google search.
48I think personal responsibility steph is that it is the person who committed the crimes fault personally and NO ONE ELSE'S.
49The liberal media doesn't have to worry about silly little things like proving anyone incited violence to claim it as a fact. But, they would never demonize anyone.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.