I just read that as many as a dozen people in the crowd outside President Obama's health care town hall in Arizona were noticibly armed - two were carrying AK-15 semi-automatic assault rifles.
Granted, Arizona has an open carry law, so there was nothing illegal about this conduct. I'm also confident that the wing nuts among us will insist that the carriers merely wanted to make a statement about freedom - that there was no intention to intimidate or indirectly threaten.
But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the Glen Becks, Sarah Palins, and Rush Limbaughs of the right aren't whipping vulnerable people into a frenzy of zenophobic fear and hatred, and that some on the right are beginning to consider threats, intimidation, and even violence as legitimate tools of policy influence.
Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Sure, our friend Joe the plumber will deny that he was suggesting that someone actually physically attack the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But if he's not recommending violence as a legitimate political response, he sure as hell sounds like it to me.
Conservativsm is a perfectly respectable political philosophy. It has a lot to teach us, as does liberalism. But this kind of behavior has nothing to do with conservatism. This is sheer ugliness hiding behind the mantel of conservatism.
I'm beginning to worry that things are getting out of hand and that we're going to start seeing inidividual incidents of violence, followed by armed rebellions.
God help us.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
2 comments:
I, too, share your concern over potential acts of violence against those on opposite sides of the political or social order. One of my greatest concerns has been over the safety of our president; I can only assume that our nation's security and protective services are vigilant in doing their duties. Unfortunately, I think it's only a matter of "when" and not "if" someone tries to attack the president.
I also think it's important to have "pressure relief valves" in our society that can allow those who oppose the current administration and its policies to vent their frustration, anger and, yes, even their hatred. To "close" these valves (Rush, Beck, etc) would create an even more volatile environment.
There does seem to be this tension between allowing even loud, offensive and ignorant behavior while making sure that potentially dangerous individuals are identified and dealt with. Having said all of this, our nation's history is one of such behavior. A survey of early American political history (at least through the 1890's), reveals that much of what we consider "ugly" in today’s political climate really pales in comparison to the political attacks, methods and slander during that period of our democracy. Just some thoughts.
I'm inclined to think Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are more like flame fanners than safety valves.
and, fortunately, you are correct regarding our political history. We've had periods where politics was far more vicious.
Joe
Post a Comment