Earlier this week, a psychotic madman stormed a Unitarian church in Knoxville, Tennessee, while the congregation within was watching a children’s performance of the musical Annie. Shooting indiscriminately, he wounded six people and killed two — fortunately, no children.
The shooter, Jim Adkisson, did not have a good life. At 58 years old, he had been chronically unemployed, and as he explained in a four-page letter found at his home, blamed “liberals and gays” for taking his jobs. The man had such books in his home as Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by Michael “Kids with Autism are Brats” Savage.
It’s quite clear that the man hated liberals with a irrational passion, and decided to go hunting. A number of left-leaning websites have ascribed blame for Adkisson’s actions with the eliminationist rhetoric eminating from segments of the conservative movement. Unfortunately, except for a few honourable exceptions, the response on the right-side of the blogosphere has been silence, even in the face of earlier outrage over lesser actions by a handful of activists on the left. Some have even tried to blame the victims.
I’m not one to believe in blanket responsibility. I’m concerned about the environment, but I have no truck nor trade with those few who have tried (largely unsuccessfully) to bomb Hummer dealerships. Likewise, I know plenty of Conservative party supporters, and they are all honourable people who wouldn’t think of doing anything even remotely like what Adkisson did. Witness also this post by progressive blogger Scott Tribe who maintains a friendship with an old school chum who works for the Conservative party. Despite major ideological differences, it is possible for many of us, left or right, to maintain cordial relationships if we try.
However, it is still too easy to find rhetoric on the right side of the fence that would appear to celebrate the actions of Adkisson:
“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.” — Ann Coulter
“I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for.” — Rush Limbaugh.
“We’re going to keep building the party until we’re hunting Democrats with dogs.” Senator Phil Gramm
No, 99% of conservatives don’t think like this, and when the instigators above are confronted with their rhetoric, they’re likely to brush it off as a “joke” (and yet, strangely enough, jokes about the supposed assassination of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an outrage). And yet these jokes are quite unfunny. They’re fuelled with hatred, and are shockingly impersonal. They’re effect is to directly intimidate those whom these instigators disagree with. If indeed these are jokes, why do people like Coulter and Limbaugh think it’s funny to make them?
How does one get from disagreement over policy to visceral hatred of you and your children? Clearly, there is a scale of rhetoric that we all must be on the lookout for, here. Sure, none of the people reading this have any thought about blowing people we hate away, but more people have tried to take their disputes out of the blogosphere and into the real world. I know of at least a couple of cases where trolls have tried calling up the workplace of people they disagree with and try and get them fired.
What merits that action? Really, if you didn’t go online and choose to visit a site you disagreed with, you wouldn’t even know that this individual existed. And even if you do, what possible disagreement justifies trying to cost a person his or her job for expressing an opinion? Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin have both stood by while their listeners have harassed liberal teachers, parents and government workers at their worksites or in their communities. Since when is expressing one’s own personal opinion a crime that deserves to be met with personal threats or invective?
And while those few trolls who have crossed the line in taking their dispute with a blogger off of the comments section of the blogs and onto the phone line remain a few, how many more bloggers have come into an argument throwing insults rather than counterarguments? I’ve walked through too many sites where Conservatives are fascists and Liberals and New Democrats are communists. I’ve heard too many arguments where left-leaning individuals were “useful idiots” betraying Canada, leftards, or worse. Ann Coulter and Johan Goldberg have gotten into this act as well. Coulter’s Traitors was a best selling book, and Jonah Goldberg still managed to get a book deal on a manuscript entitled Liberal Fascism.
That’s how it starts. Take it to its logical extreme, and you pull out a gun and put a bullet in the head of the person you disagree with. And I think this spectrum of incivility begins with the critical decision not to address a person on their own individual ideas, but to respond to the disagreement by seeing the person you disagree with as somehow inherently inferior for thinking the way you do. Once you stop saying “well, I disagree with you, sir” and start saying “you shouldn’t be allowed to express that opinion, you moron”, you are trying to control the thoughts of those who disagree with you, and I’m sorry, but in this democracy, you don’t get to do that.
One way out of this downward spiral would be to stop getting personal with the generalizations. We are not fascists. We are not leftards, fiberals or communists. And we’re not even assholes just for holding differing opinions. We are ourselves. The only label we have inherent to us is the name on our birth certificate. We are only socialists, conservatives, Conservative Party supporters or environmentalists if we choose to be. We should pick our own labels, and not try to stick the label on the lapel of the people we meet.
In the interest of fairness I have to say that both sides have engaged in heated rhetoric in the past and present. You will find swear words thrown around at Canadian Cynic. You will find accusations of war crimes thrown around against the Bush Administration on staunch liberal sites in the United States. However, I do have to say that in my own experience, this sort of activity largely pales against the eliminationist rhetoric that has been far, far easier to find within the right side of the blogosphere. And the right has Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage all living off of their personalities, all with thousands of viewers paying attention to the hateful rhetoric they spew. The left has Michael Moore and Al Franken, and I don’t believe they’ve ever called for a hunting season on conservatives. The real whackos on the left — the sort of people Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh would be if they were spewing their rhetoric on the left rather than on the right — don’t get mainstream attention. Instead, they are seen as the whackos that they are. Why can’t this sensible standard be applied on the right side of the fence?
We don’t have left wing militias practising war games in the wilderness areas of Michigan, or getting on CBC Newsworld in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and telling viewers that “most of the conditions of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented in Canada and the United States. Wake up, people!” And while I do not ascribe this as a flaw in conservative thinking in general, it would be nice if more conservative bloggers were to identify the loonies blogging on their fringe, and denouce them properly. It’s past time that these nutjobs be disabused of their notion that they have a comfortable home in the side of the blogosphere that they infect.
This sort of cleansing does have to happen periodically. The NDP cut off its own Waffle movement as well, in order to give it any hope of mainstream acceptability. And those guys weren’t calling for armed revolution. Not at all.
Now, before I sign off, I know that, because I’ve singled out some specific right-wing phenomenon, I’m going to receive comments pointing out cases where those in the left have been intemperate in their political rhetoric. The folks at the Rabble are often cited by those who seek to say “see, see? They do it too!”
Well, you’re going to have to get a bit more specific if you raise this issue with me. Show me the posts where Rabble posters call for the execution of conservatives. Show me the posts where posters celebrate the death of Canadian servicemen serving in Afghanistan. And show me that these posts weren’t criticized by other posters on the board.
And, while you’re at it, let me know how many readers these leftie loudmouths receive, how many newspaper columns they write, how much harder it was to find these individuals than it was for me to find these comments by Coulter and Limbaugh, and the thousands of readers that they themselves preach to. And explain to me why this activity on the left is in any way a match for this activity on the right.
And I will tell you to your face: so what? Do your examples make the activities of Coulter, Limbaugh and the wackos on the right any less egregious? Do they justify the beliefs by any group of people that other groups of people should be hunted down with dogs?
I don’t doubt that the egregious stuff is there on the left. Show it to me, and I will denounce it. But only if you denounce the activity on the right as well. If you pester me with examples of this sort of activity on the left, you’re either telling me that it’s no big deal when the right does it, or there is a problem with the left that is at least as big as that on the right. So, which is it?
Because I see a problem with the violent rhetoric in general and I see a need to speak out more against it. Maybe I’m wrong to see it more on the right than on the left, but the examples on the right are there for all to see. Will you denounce them? Will anybody?
Further Reading
- Courtesy Chet Scoville: “Please consider donating to the Knoxville Relief Fund, set up by the UUA to help the victims of the Knoxville shooting.
- A first person account of the horrible event
July 30, 2008 7:47 AM
Could it be that US conservatives start from the premises that individual freedom is more important than the public good? Unlike our Red Tories they don’t seem to have grasp the concept of it being the government’s duty to protect those less fortunate from the worst of capitalism and owner’s and management’s duty to take care of their employees. When you push individualism, maximization of profits and the pursuit of individual happiness to extremes like some US conservatives and Canadian Reformers do you get the kind of extremism we are witnessing in the current right wing rhetoric. The left in both Canada and the States on the other hand starts with the premise that there is such a thing as public good and want peace, stability and good government not less government. Doesn’t this premise just naturally make for more moderate rhetoric? Mind you the far left can get pretty bad as well but, you are right this does not justify the avocation of murder by either side. Another element in the vitriol might be extreme patriotism — look at what such patriotism wrought in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia — ethnic cleansing! Good post, James.
July 30, 2008 2:35 PM
James — I agree with your premise but don’t understand why you are primarily leaning on the right — although I never listen to or read the sources you mentioned.
In fact, I have found the exact reverse — that trashing people is usually found on the left — from personal experience.
True, I have never been threatened with physical harm (as far as I know) but every time a blogger trashes your name (particularly in a post title), it goes on google and that is a different type of harm.
So, explain to me please, and I am sure you have noticed, why day after day after day, it is perfectly acceptable for Canadian Cynic (and Red Tory) trash everything I write about the Harper government, no matter what it is — but particularly relating to my list of Harper Government Accomplishments.
It is not the disagreement I object to but the disparaging remarks about who I am as a professional and as a person. They both ridicule my name. They ridicule my educational credentials. And, they ridicule what I write — because they don’t want to read anything positive about the prime minister and the Harper government.
Of course they look for “gotcha” types of issues which is fair game. But, the reality is nothing I have included on the list are based on my ideas. I simply take them from existing government search engines or the mainstream media.
Sometimes CC and Red Tory have been right and I have made corrections — which they then ridicule me for doing.
But, it has gotten to the point where I now have only one list — at Jack’s Newswatch — because it is very difficult to remember to change several copies. So, no doubt, some previous corrections have been missed causing the latest that I am a “pathological liar.”
That descriptor is actually defamation. But, I can’t do anything about that can I because CC hides behind anonymity. He or she criticizes me using my real name but hide their own.
The reality is I work alone and have developed “the list” to the best of my ability. I am not perfect nor is anyone else. Information is constantly changing as are URL links.
However, if there is to be any meaningful dialogue about that list from anyone on the left, screaming and calling me names is not the solution.
CC and/or his or her readers could just as easily send me an e-mail, giving me their real name and telling me what they have a problem with and I will look into it.
The bottom line is I have NEVER ever written a post against another blogger.
And, I really like and respect you and the guts you have to write about these kind of topics. So, while I may disgree with your emphasis in this post on the bad behaviour of bloggers and journalists on the right, as usual I will simply say we will have to agree to disagree and shake hands symbolically.
As always, my best wishes to your lovely young family.
July 30, 2008 3:05 PM
Thanks, Sandy. I hear what you’re saying.
I don’t agree with the tactics that Canadian Cynic uses. I feel that his manner detracts from the points he makes and gives his opponents something to harp on rather than to deal with the issues he wants to deal with. I have told him so, but it is his blog so there is little that I can do other than express my opinion. I do have to say, however, that compared to the extreme rhetoric that I’ve listed here, CC’s blog is tame.
It’s tame on two levels: there are no unprovoked threats of bodily harm, as far as I’ve seen. And the activity on Canadian Cynic generally stays on Canadian Cynic. You ask him to leave or you ban his comments on your blog, and that is usually the end of that, on your blog. On the other hand, I and people I know have dealt with a particular troll who didn’t leave it at that, who sought to get around our comment moderation, who sent abusive e-mails, and who at one point called some bloggers’ place of work with the goal of trying to get those bloggers fired. This troll-blogger was before your time, and he did his work anonymously. He vanished when another blogger made some progress in finding out who he was. This troll posted from the right. I’ve yet to see a left leaning example in the Canadian blogosphere.
Finally, CC tends to mimic the behaviour he sees on some of the blogs he criticizes. His rhetoric is matched by specific blogs on the right, with the difference being that he attacks them (and those who associate with them, which again, I don’t agree with), and they attack people who haven’t attacked first. They’ve also used tactics which go beyond what CC does, for example purchasing domain names that are similar to the blog in question (like canadiancynic.ca, for instance) and pointing them to horrible websites, like NAMBLA or the racist group Stormfront. CC’s no angel, and has never claimed to be, which is a shame, especially in your case. But I’ve seen worse.
So I agree with you: the vehemently disparaging remarks are not good, are counterproductive, and are at the beginning of the scale of heated rhetoric that I’m writing about here, but others are much further along, and those that I’m thinking of tend to be on the right side of the blogosphere. I believe it would be good if they were reeled back ahead of CC.
Then there is the question of audience. CC does not compare to Rush Limbaugh or even a couple of the websites he criticizes, both in the extent of his rhetoric, or in the size of his audience. So how is it that Limbaugh and those like him appear to have greater mainstream acceptance, or at least tolerance, than he does? Again, in terms of the depth of the problem of incivility that CC represents, there are others out there whose rhetorical impact is much heavier and much more deserving of our condemnation, in my opinion.
July 30, 2008 6:54 PM
James — I forgot to mention that of course you are right about extreme positions, no matter which side on the political spectrum. Violence, in word and deed, is wrong and politics shouldn’t enter into it.
But frankly, it seems to me in the case of Jim Adkisson, mental illness and isolation had more to do with his behaviour than politics.
Regarding the other names and shock jocks you mentioned, such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I have never listened to them or read their work and I have no idea what makes them tick other than for money.
So, it is upsetting frankly, to be linked to people like that just because I support the Stephen Harper government.
A digression: What is left and right really supposed to mean anyway? And, how many of us think all one way and not the other? I would doubt very many since we are all unique individuals.
One of the courses I used to teach in university was a grad course on sociology in education — which included a section on social deviance. I would put the students in groups and they would have to debate an issue — such as we are doing here.
First we would brainstorm some topics from the news of the day and then students would put themselves in one of two groups — where they felt most comfortable. They would then debate the issues.
Then, half way through the class I would stop the discussion and everyone would have to change sides.
The “intermission” would be very interesting. Some students would just sit there for a few minutes to get a second breath. But, I never had anyone who was not up to the switch and before long, everyone was once again actively debating — but from the opposite position.
Later we would look at the arguments presented from theoretical points of view and what they felt about the experience. Students usually shared that it was positive because they got a chance to “experience” another person’s point of view.
But, while I too denounce violent rhetoric in the blogosphere, I don’t feel it is my responsibility to write about what another blogger has written, be they progressive, liberal or conservative.
Why? Because first of all, I don’t listen to shock jocks. Secondly, I never read blogs that are abusive or nasty.
But, keep up the good work James. As usual, well done!
July 30, 2008 8:01 PM
Sandy,
No question that Adkisson was a mentally disturbed individual, and that if he didn’t have “liberals” and “gays” to target his outburst, he may well have attacked some other group of people. But Marc Lepine was also clearly a mentally disturbed individual, whose lifetime led him on his murderous rampage in L’Ecole Polytechnique. That doesn’t change the fact that he targetted women, just as Adkisson targetted people he saw as liberals.
I don’t think I want to draw the connection between Adkisson and the anti-liberal books he had in his possession as tightly as other bloggers want to draw it. Adkisson acted on his own, is now incarcerated, and should receive the full judicial process. To have, say, Michael Savage in the docket with him wouldn’t be a good idea. By the same token, we could theoretically use Al Queda’s love of the Koran to tar all followers of that holy book. But it is still something that we should look at, both in the world around us, and in our own hearts.
Because the Quran is a book with some passages in it that can be twisted to justify violent acts. The same could be said for passages in the Bible. However, the difference is that these books have been around for centuries, and most followers listen to their own hearts and deal with priests and Imans who refuse to accept the possible violent interpretations of these passages. Just as we need to watch out for the radical Imans calling for jihad, or “Reverend” Fred Phelps celebrating the death of American soldiers as part of his crusade against gays, what excuse does Michael Savage and Ann Coulter have when they write that liberals are traitors, or joke that they need to be executed? Unlike the mainstream Imans and bishops, they are not speaking a message of peace and love, and when somebody appears to listen to their words of hatred and act out hatefully, it’s worth asking how much responsibility those individuals have.
No, we shouldn’t tar you or all Conservative Party supporters in connection to the rhetoric of Coulter, but as I said, these radical elements in the conservative movement seem to believe that they’re welcome where they are. It does no good to have liberals denounce them — they’re expecting that, and even desire that — they need to be told by the portion of the political spectrum that they claim to speak to that their attitude is not welcome. That would have more impact, and could well start raising the civility of the blogosphere.
It might not have stopped Adkisson from going on his killing spree, but we’ll never know. However, if we stop referring to liberals or conservatives as “the enemy”, and use rhetoric to suggest that we’re at war with each other, maybe more people will view their opponents with respect, be more accepting of political differences of opinion, and tone down the emnity.
July 31, 2008 12:20 AM
“No, we shouldn’t tar you or all Conservative Party supporters in connection to the rhetoric of Coulter, but as I said, these radical elements in the conservative movement seem to believe that they’re welcome where they are.”
That’s basically the point I’ve been trying to make, too. And, as far as I can see, they seem to believe they’re welcome because they are welcome, especially in the United States, where the Republican Party has spent an enormous amount of money and effort cultivating them, and repeating the same message of anger, fear, and loathing over and over again. Some of the same tactics are beginning to get used in Canada, too (although to a lesser extent).
Like James, I prefer to talk things over. I try not to be rude to people (although I’m certainly not perfect). But, you know, a minimum standard that I have for engaging in conversation is that my interlocutor must not make death threats against me and mine, not even in jest, or make excuses for those who do.
August 2, 2008 8:30 AM
Mr. Bow,
I used to read this site, and I must say, although you and I would differ on most of the major political issues, your posts are well-written and thoughtful.
However, I can no longer do so, because you have basically tarred the entire right side of the political spectrum as being complicit in this murder, despite your attempts to deny this.
So, congratulations - you have done your bit to promote the polarization of the commentariat that you profess to deplore.
August 2, 2008 10:23 AM
Well, my challenge remains open. I’ve shown you the eliminationist rhetoric that exists in small sectors of the right. Do you believe that this rhetoric is acceptable, or is it a problem? If your argument is that the left does it too, then you should be arguing that it is a problem rather than the rhetoric is justified. And if the left is doing it too, show me the examples of the rhetoric. If you can, I will join you in deploring those examples. Let’s deplore those examples on both sides of the fence together.
But I have yet to have anybody point me to an example of from the left that matches the tenor or the mainstream acceptance of someone like Limbaugh and Coulter. So I wait.
August 3, 2008 5:26 AM
This will be my final reply, as I was quite in earnest when I said that I can no longer read your site.
1) I don’t attach the same importance to eliminationist rhetoric that you do; the actions of one mentally disturbed person are insufficient to me to engage in self-flagellation.
2) The rhetoric does exist on the left side of the spectrum as well as the right; if you can’t find it, it suggests to me that you aren’t really looking that hard. As I said, I don’t consider it an issue, but there are plenty of right-wing blogs who make it their purpose to highlight examples of this taking place on the left.
3) Where it does concern me, is where there is a conistent pattern of actions being influenced by rhetoric, and where there is a pattern of those same actions being approved by the producers of the rhetoric. This is why I am concerned about Qutbism (or whatever you want to call the Al-Qaeda inspired ideologies). I have yet to see any commentator on the right express approval of the Knoxville incident - and if you produce such an example, I will gladly denounce it, widely and vocally. This can not be said about the Qutbist movement - you will easily find commentators praising the acts of the ‘jihadis’ and ‘shahids’. Your conflating the rightwing commentariat with the Qutbists is what to me, is the most offensive part of your commentary.
August 3, 2008 9:18 AM
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” — Ann Coulter.
I’ll deplore Al Queda and its supporters (I already do). Will you deplore this woman?
August 3, 2008 9:55 AM
At a risk of losing all credibility by continuing to respond:
1) Yes, Ann Coulter is a hateful person and should be ignored, deplored and despised by anyone who considers themselves a conservative. Is that sufficient?
2) I don’t need you to denounce Qutbism. You are extremely unlikely to be taken in by it. What I’d like you to recognise is that the problem with Qutbism and its supporters in the Muslim world is greater by so many orders of magnitude than that of eliminationists and the right-wing that to conflate the two as you have done in this post and its comments is meretricious.
3) I still think you’re seeing only what you want to see when you say this problem is more prevalent on the right than on the left. Google “we support the troops when they shoot their officers” as an example.
August 3, 2008 9:40 PM
Heh. I perfectly understand. You intended to make a statement, but instead we ended up having a conversation. And I won’t fault you for that, because since we’re not shouting at each other, the conversation appears to be going well.
Yes, and thank you for saying that. It would be nice if more conservatives said that, though. Because as I said to conservative commentator Sandy earlier in this thread, the Limbaughs and the Coulters seem to think that the have a comfortable home in conservative circles. The denunciation of liberals is hardly going to sway them away from their rhetoric, which is why it would be better if conservatives did it instead. It might make them think, and it would certainly broadcast the fact that conservatives in general don’t hold with these ideas, which would enhance the integrity of the conservative movement, in my opinion.
Well, it is true that I’m not actively looking for this phenomenon. The fact that I’m finding those few examples more often on the right than on the left suggests to me a few things. As I’ve said, there is a difference of scale between the examples I’ve seen, both in terms of the heat of the rhetoric, and in terms of its prominence.
In the Canadian blogosphere, the blog Canadian Cynic is often cited by conservative bloggers as the epitome of the incivility of the left, and it is true that CC has gone too far, in my opinion, in the past. His worst case, in my opinion, was when he posted on his blog, regarding a mother of a fallen soldier in Afghanistan, “f——— you and your grief”, in response to her calls to maintain the Afghan mission in memory of her fallen son. That was bad and he took heat for it, but he has never cheered the death of Canadian soldiers, and never called for the execution of conservatives. Also, while his blog does get many hits, they pale in comparison to the viewership and readership of the Limbaughs and the Coulters out there. The real whackos on the left are, by and large, already seen as whackos.
But one other thing that might be happening here is that you tend to notice things that are thrown at you more than you notice the things that are tossed over you. I’m not looking for these examples of hate, but I certainly feel it keenly when I feel as though I’m the target of it.
Now regarding the comparison with the terrorists, I did not intend to make that correlation. I think most commentators, left and right, know that the terrorists aren’t here for civil discourse, and I support the efforts of our intelligence community to head them off at the pass — assuming of course we don’t sell the farm when it comes to our civil liberties. But your average blogger or talk show host, left or right, should know better when it comes to whether or not you should treat your liberal or conservative opponent as a fellow citizen you happen to disagree with, or an enemy. I get frustrated when I see this sort of rhetoric because the posters should know better. Conservatives are not fascists, and liberals are not traitors, and it’s time we put that sort of language away.