I made the mistake of following a link to a Frank Rich column this morning — an activity liable to cause lowed IQ, severe irritation, or in extreme cases, the gnawing off of one’s own arm. In an effort to channel possible side effects into a vaguely positive outlet, I hope that readers will forgive me if I revisit a topic that I already touched on once before: the increasing attempts by Democratic partisans to insist that the only people who could possibly oppose their agenda are evil, racist, gun-toting, potentially-violent freaks.
Like many of Rich’s pieces, this one is wandering and somewhat inarticulate. However, the basic thread is that the right as a whole is made up of violent extremists who should not be a part of the current health care debate in congress. In support of this, he points to the handful of 2nd Amendment activists who have been showing up at Townhall Meetings and other public venues in states that allows the open carry of firearms and exercising that selfsame right. This, he argues, proves that they are just like Timothy McVeigh (after all, one of them quoted Thomas Jefferson, who was also quoted by McVeigh), and to cap it all off some Republicans opposed counter-terrorism bills proposed in the wake of the OKC bombing. Got all that?
A couple things strike me about the unreasonableness of this line of thinking.
Let me start by saying, I don’t in any way condone carrying guns at political demonstrations. I understand the point the protesters are trying to make, and it is perfectly legal (in those states where it’s occurring) so long as they don’t behave in a threatening manner, but I think it’s needlessly provocative and generally unhelpful. And from a gun safety point of view, I just don’t think that guns belong at a political rally.
That said, however, it strikes me as interesting that many of the same liberal voices who loudly and frequently fault Israel for not negotiating more with Hamas and the PLO (whose supporters not only carry guns frequently at rallies, but do so while masked and at times firing in the air) think that Obama should refuse to negotiate with Republicans at all on the health care bill because a few 2nd Amendment protesters have been seeing sedately carrying guns at rallies.
While I’m thinking of Middle East parallels, it’s always interesting to me that the Oklahoma City bombing has become such a favorite touchstone for liberals when they’re trying to insist that the conservative movement as a whole is dangerous and violent. The same people who assured us repeatedly that there are an awful lot of reasons why “they” hate is in the Middle East and that we need to be cognizant of root causes for violence have a very hard time recalling that Timothy McVeigh was very explicitly motivated by the government’s tragically unwise handling of the Branch Davidian standoff several years before. That certainly doesn’t make his murderous response right, but it is interesting that Rich is as eager to use the “they kill us because they hate us and our freedoms” line against domestic right wingers, when he understands it is simplistic and un-useful in foreign policy.
Finally, I think it’s worth highlighting again how unhelpful to discourse a “Here, look at these freaks! All my opponents are like this!” approach to political argument is. For instance, I’m strongly against the idea of same sex marriage. However, I would consider it inappropriate to argue against it repeatedly and loudly by saying: “See this disgusting behavior at the Folsom Street Fair? That’s the kind of people who support gay marriage, therefore your should oppose them to.” Caricaturing all of your opponents on an issue as being like the most objectionable and fringy minority of them isn’t just rude, it’s wrong. Yet — given that carrying a gun in public is apparently as revolting to Frank Rich as public displays of bondage and sadomasochism are to most sane people — he appears to have no problem with using those sorts or rhetorical tactics, so long as they serve his own ends.
Indeed, this column contains examples of many of the ways in which the angry left of the “I Hate Bush” years has lowered the tone of public discussion in our country, and is now proving a serious impediment to their chosen candidate now that he’s actually in office. Rich growls at Obama:
Should Obama fail to deliver serious reform because his administration treats the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as deferentially as it has the banks, that would be shameful. Should he fail because he in any way catered to a decimated opposition party that has sunk and shrunk to its craziest common denominator, that would be ludicrous.
The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it’s a paper muskrat.
I hope you will not blame me if this gives me a certain perverse amusement. With Obama’s health care reform initiative increasingly trapped between the hammer of public opinion and the anvil of his own supporters intransigence, perhaps there’s actually a chance that people will have to “hit the reset button” and try to come up with something modest and sane instead.
Darwin don’t be too hard on Mr. Rich. When Obama was elected with large Democrat majorities in Congress he, like much of the Left, thought that this was their final victory over conservatives. Instead, Obama is proving himself singularly unable to carry his agenda through Congress in the teeth of popular resistance. So what is Rich to do?
He could write that Obama made a key mistake in attempting to shut out the GOP from his legislative initiatives, thereby ensuring that 40% of the country would be in automatic opposition. Another possible column might be that Democrats with such a large Blue Dog contingent have to learn how to compromise. Finally, Rich might tell his fellow Leftists that they should adopt an incremental approach and that bold schemes such as federalizing health care simply produce too much opposition to succeed.
Of course, these type of columns would detract from the idea that Obama is a Leftist Messiah who will lead his followers to an unending political reign in an earthly socialist paradise. Thus we have Rich, rather than dealing with an unpleasant reality, writing another blame the Right column, which allows him and his faithful readers to vent emotionally, while doing absolutely nothing to address the fact that the Obama legislative agenda is taking on water faster than the Titanic.
I made the mistake of following a link to a Frank Rich column this morning
I made the same mistake. I generally enjoy the give-and-take of partisan debate, but the last couple months have been depressing, and Rich’s column is just another salvo in the bitter recriminations following the health care debacle.
Democrats think they’re on the side of the angels with health care reform. I think they’re right – at least as a matter of intention – but they’ve mismanaged it badly, and now are reduced to pretending as if it’s shocking – shocking! – that an amorphous and chaotic mess of a reform bill is being successfully mis-characterized by its opponents. It would be nice if they found a better outlet for their frustrations than writing shrill and incendiary op-eds, and it certainly would be better for the country. On the other hand, Republican partisans must enjoy seeing Democrats like Mr. Rich in such a state. The surest and fastest route to a Republican recovery is for the Democrats to convince themselves that it was evil Republican lies, rather than their own mishandling, that prevented health care reform.
On the other hand, Republican partisans must enjoy seeing Democrats like Mr. Rich in such a state. The surest and fastest route to a Republican recovery is for the Democrats to convince themselves that it was evil Republican lies, rather than their own mishandling, that prevented health care reform.
There’s a sense in which it is perversely satisfying to see many Democrats consistently unable to understand that some people of good will actually oppose their program, but from such cheap victories come lazy habits.
Finally, Rich might tell his fellow Leftists that they should adopt an incremental approach and that bold schemes such as federalizing health care simply produce too much opposition to succeed.
Yes, but what we are seeing is the incremental approach to federalizing health care. When Hillary the co-president failed, she said that they would have to take incremental steps. That’s what the idea behind expanding SCHIP to upper middle class adults was about. This is about that too. Remember the Barney Frank clip from a week ago, he’s all for federalized medicine but prefers this plan be pushed through as an incremental step.
I don’t think anybody, left or right, sincrely believes this is actually a good or workable plan. Most on the left still want it as a step toward government control of HC, the less workable this plan is, the better for their objectives. Some on the left oppose it because they have no patience for the incremental approach, they want it all, and now. The rest of us oppose it because it’s not only a bad plan but we know where it’s leading.
but from such cheap victories come lazy habits.
I admit I’m enjoying watching both parties flounder to some extent. My hope is that the end result will involve better access to health care for the chronically under-insured – and little else.
To be fair, I think Clinton Derangement Syndrome played some role in the coarsening of public discourse as well.
Fair point. And indeed, though it was a bit on my early end, there seemed to be a pretty clear Reagan Derangement Syndrome as well. I’m not really clear if Carter managed to inspire that kind of craziness. Nixon did — but then managed in many ways to deserve it as well.
Come to that, I’m not sure there’s a real beginning to the trend. It may just be that after a certain point that kind of pop culture phenomenon fades into the background of historical awareness.
Jefferson was a crazed atheist, Adams a dangerous monarchist. Just ask the partisans that opposed them. I think every president since Washington has attracted extreme opposition, and by the middle of his second term even he was not immune.
The advance of mass communications, especially the internet, makes it seem like we’re in an intensely partisan age, but this sort of bitterness has always been there. That said, I think Peter Wood makes a good case that perhaps anger is more intense now than ever before.
Come to that, I’m not sure there’s a real beginning to the trend.
Robert Bork has said that there was a change in the culture of official Washington around about 1981. Larry Sabato identified 1966 and 1973 as salient punctuation marks in the evolution of the national press corps.
I don’t remember ’66. ’73 was pure anti-Nixon. ’81 pure anti-Reagan. I suspect if the MSM were more objective in their reporting on Obama there might be less aggressive displays by conservatives.
I became eligible to vote in ’81. Reagan Derangement Syndrome was very much extant, but I think things have gotten worse since. Reagan’s personal charisma, like Clinton’s after him, may have had the effect of toning things down a bit.
That in part is probably true. Obama’s charisma seems part real and part manufactured. That plus the “messianism” of his movement probably also contributes to the extremes of response.
Sabato referred to the period running from 1966 to 1973 as a sweet interlude. By his account, from about 1941 to about 1966, the national press corps had little critical distance from the politicians and government they covered. (Critics who read Katherine Graham’s memoir said one of the disconcerting elements was unselfconscious description of the incestuous relationship between the Kennedy Administration on the one hand and Philip Graham & Ben Bradlee on the other). In his view, from about 1973, the press was overtaken with unprofessional behavior. Nicholas von Hoffman has been critical of what he called “media Monovox”, but has also said that there was a lowering of standards of journalistic proof that began around 1973 and that the behavior of major newspapers during Richard Nixon’s last years in office was embarrassing.
Bork has said that political life in the capital was adversarial but not vicious prior to 1981, and that was what changed.