There Will Be Blood Spilled If the Republicans Keep Matching Their Message with Violent Talk

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Words matter--and they matter even more when they are violent words. Apparently, GOP leadership agrees.

Despite the unwillingness of mainstream media to connect the dots, the base and leadership of the GOP are matching their rhetoric to the disturbing rise of violent talk at Tea Party rallies and amongst conservative anti-government groups. The conclusion: rather than recoil at violent language, GOP leadership seems to see it as a chance to turn out votes.

Most notably, Chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, issued a recent call to Republicans to put Nancy Pelosi on the "firing line" because of the health insurance reform bill.

By using the phrase "firing line," Steele encourages Republican activists to think of the next election as an execution of the opposition or a violent killing. The language Steele uses is not neutral. "Defeat" is defined as "kill." "Voting" is linked to "shooting." Winning the election is couched in an image of bloodletting.

In a similar violent vein, Sarah Palin via Twitter told her Republican followers to "reload" and "aim for" Democrats, directing GOP activists to her SarahPac website where they found a map of the country festooned with rifle scope cross-hairs over Congressional districts held by Democrats.

Palin's rifle scope map is the kind of image one might expect to see in an ad for a violent, first-person shooter video game. Again, neither the language nor the imagery Palin uses are neutral. For Palin, the concepts of political "organizing" and "volunteering" are recast as the functions of a rifle. "Campaigning" is re-imagined as a counter assault on a war battlefield. Even more disturbing, Palin re-imagines the traditional U.S. map as a military kill list. Engaging in election politics is framed as violent assault.

When seen in the context of this violent rhetoric by the highest-profile figures in the Republican Party, recent calls for gun violence seen at Tea Party rallies on Capital Hill take on new meaning.

If the GOP leadership is truly appalled by calls for violence in response to legislation passed in Congress, their language would reflect that abhorrence for violence. Instead, GOP leadership seems to be shaping their messages to match the violent turn in the rhetoric from their base.

Even more disturbing, however, the violent framing from GOP leadership has suddenly sprung up in a context where anti-government conservative groups are inciting their members to engage in physical acts of violence against Democrats, resulting in bricks being thrown through windows of Democratic Party offices and vandalism against the house of a Democratic Congressman's family member.

Mike Vanderboegh, former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, recently called for hundreds of thousands of gun owners to "point their muzzles at the hearts of tyrants" when discussing ways to oppose recent congressional legislation. Reports have come out linking Vanderboegh's statements to recent violence against Democratic Party offices.

What should be done?

First and foremost: The mainstream media has an obligation to connect the sudden use of violent rhetoric and imagery by GOP leadership to the various incidents of violent language and actions by political activists. Telling viewers that right-wing violence is "isolated" or "fringe" is inaccurate at best, misleading and dishonest at worst.

Second: GOP leadership needs to make unequivocal statements condemning all explicit use of violence and violent rhetoric in politics. Silence is consent.

Third: GOP leadership needs to demonstrates constructive ways for their supporters to express their disagreement with the opposition's ideas or legislation. Brandishing weapons--either literally or on posters--is not constructive. Death threats are not constructive.

When Americans threaten to use firearms to enforce their political views, the violent threats carried by that language undermines the system of public debate on which our system depends. Healthy political debate can sustain a great deal of anger and passion, but it cannot sustain repeated threats of violence and calls for violent assault as a form of political engagement.

It is time to for right-wing political violence to stop before passions turn to bloodshed.

Jeffrey Feldman is Editor-in-Chief of Frameshop.

[Danno 1,228]

Jeffrey Feldman is Editor-in-Chief of Frameshop.

This false outrage just gets sillier and even more silly.

I think it was none other than Obamas Chief of staff who at a dinner plunged a steak knife into the table screaming DEAD.... each time he named an enemy.

<<<<Emanuel is known for his "take-no-prisoners style" that has earned him the nickname "Rahmbo."[21] Emanuel is said to have sent a dead fish in a box to a pollster who was late delivering polling results.[17] On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[5][7] >>>>

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The mainstream media has an obligation to connect the sudden use of violent rhetoric and imagery by GOP leadership to the various incidents of violent language and actions by political activists. Telling viewers that right-wing violence is "isolated" or "fringe" is inaccurate at best, misleading and dishonest at worst.

What a bunch of whiny little bitches!

Or, is this a left wing plot to declare Obama leader for life.

I put the odds at 50:50. Which is it? Are you Progressives all ball-less cowards, or should America expect a Nacht der Langen Messer? All the folks he put in place this week lose their jobs in November, so time is a wasting!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Using the exaggerated term 'tyranny' to describe the oval office is undermining our democracy by convincing Americans that their government no longer works for them and that trying to change it through the traditional mechanisms is futile. It's like cornering a rattlesnake while jumping up and down.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Using the exaggerated term 'tyranny' to describe the oval office is undermining our democracy by convincing Americans that their government no longer works for them and that trying to change it through the traditional mechanisms is futile. It's like cornering a rattlesnake while jumping up and down.

If not tyranny, what do you call it, when Congress ignores the will of the people? And if not oppression, what do you call it, when the Administration, uses all the means at its disposal, to silence the voices of dissent?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If not tyranny, what do you call it, when Congress ignores the will of the people? And if not oppression, what do you call it, when the Administration, uses all the means at its disposal, to silence the voices of dissent?

Congress and the President aren't in office to simply conduct themselves based on polls. They are there to represent those who voted for them on the very issues they ran for. How many Republican presidents abandoned their ideals and went instead with what happened to be the popular sentiment of the moment? How many polls that showed Americans wanted a different course than what GW Bush was taking this country where the Bush Administration embraced the will of the people and changed course? The Republican Party is using a double standard and fanning the flames of violence and intimidation because they lost on health care. Drumming up the Radical Right with such rhetoric is going to really backfire on the Republican Party. Shame on them.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If not tyranny, what do you call it, when Congress ignores the will of the people?

Congress is carrying out the will of the people. Health care reform was on the platform that the people voted into office. Whipping up a frenzy and scaring people with utter lies and misinformation - as the party of NO and their corporate sponsors have done for a year now - might change the poll numbers on the health care reform package but the provisions in the package are and always have been popular with the American people.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Congress is carrying out the will of the people.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Here's where the right wing group got it wrong. Congress ignores the will of some people, not the will of all people.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In this country, we govern by elections and not by Gallup polls. The House and the Senate were elected, if you recall.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can roll on the fcuking floor all you want. Check out the Democrat's and Obama's election platform and tell me that health care reform along the lines what is now the law of the land wasn't in there. It was and they delivered.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In this country, we govern by elections and not by Gallup polls. The House and the Senate were elected, if you recall.

The sad part is that we have a two party system, which mean we get a choice of either/or, and the will of the people never gets taken into account, any longer than it takes to persuade enough folks that you are not nearly as corrupt as your opponent. (It's pretty hard to remember you got elected to drain the swamp when you are hip deep in alligators.) If you caught the debate today between Christ and Rubio, then you see what American politics is all about. Certainly, I nothing about taking into account, the "will of the people." The system is broke.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's where the right wing group got it wrong. Congress ignores the will of some people, not the will of all people.

Not all the people, just the majority of the people have been ignored, where they wanted a consensus solution to America's healthcare problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In this country, we govern by elections and not by Gallup polls. The House and the Senate were elected, if you recall.

Word.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not all the people, just the majority of the people have been ignored, where they wanted a consensus solution to America's healthcare problem.

Consensus between who? Republicans and Democrats? That's what the new law of the land is. Don't get confused by the Republicans putting short term political calculus over standing for what they've promoted for decades.