Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, March 7, 2012 | 2 a.m.
In 2008, after I conducted a brief televised interview with Barack Obama in which he derided me as a “proxy for John McCain,” the excesses poured forth almost immediately.
Rush Limbaugh all but deified me on his radio program, congratulating me for challenging “The Messiah” and fretting I might end up unemployed, slumped over a slot machine. Oh, joy.
Obama supporters unleashed all manner of vitriol, from calling me a “conservative tool” to a “satanic hack” to a “racist punk.” Lovely, eh?
(Here’s the video and a column.)
I am reminded of this experience as partisans and Fourth Estaters are all atwitter (especially on Twitter) about Limbaugh’s astonishingly asinine and revoltingly clueless remarks about Sandra Fluke and his subsequent apology that dripped with all the sincerity of a child asking for forgiveness so he doesn’t lose car privileges.
The behavior in the wake of this display of crass hucksterism by the best huckster on the planet has been all too predictable and shows the more things change ...
The false moral equivalencies, the blind fingerpointing, the hyperventilating counterattacks. This is yet another manifestation of the let’s-watch-the-cable-network-that-validates-our-point-of-view culture, one that provides little illumination in the quest for partisan (or ratings) advantage, counts on the populace being ignorant and easy to manipulate, and is often rewarded by ... the populace being ignorant and easy to manipulate.
Thus, we spend more time bleating about imagined wars on women and religion and less on potential cataclysms involving potentially nuclear, bellicose nations. God bless America.
Alas, this is the second object lesson in a week or so, with the first coming with the sad death of Andrew Breitbart at the age of 43. The ugliness spewing forth from those on the left was all too emblematic of a movement that too often resorts to ad hominem contumely as opposed to reasoned debate. Yes, conservatives often do the same with their bête noirés, especially the president, but I find the right to be more haughty and condescending than relentlessly disgusting and classless.
I was no fan of Breitbart and was less than amused during the “Showdown in Searchlight” in 2010 when he made a sensation out of someone egging a Tea Party Express bus while across the way his peeps carried racist and birther placards.
But while I believe civility can be overrated, when a man dies, leaving a wife and four children behind, unless he was a serial killer, perhaps, it is a time to shut up if you have nothing but bile to vomit into the public discourse. When I saw people who despised Breitbart defending the posthumous pounding of him by raising the provocateur’s awful comments upon Ted Kennedy’s death, I wondered just how hypocritical they could be and how low into the muck they could sink.
Really?
What’s wrong with the body politic is not people seeing events through the prism of their own experiences, as we all do, but the surrender to the most base impulses and the refusal to even consider that the other side might have a point. Do some conservatives show insensitivity bordering on misogyny when it comes to women’s issues? Of course. But do some liberals look down on sincere people of faith who value their religion above almost everything? Absolutely.
I am not sure what bothers me more in the wake of Limbaugh’s offensive outburst — the cowardice of the GOP presidential contingent to call him out or the rush to exploit his comments by those on the other side.
Just as the left should not have raised what Breitbart said about Kennedy and others, so, too, should the right have not been so quick to list the myriad outrageous and sulfurous comments made by liberal commentators. So what? Sometimes a thing does speak for itself. Period.
This is why it is almost laughable that anyone who participates in a political world that is so frequently full of slime and dishonesty would even seek to claim the moral high ground. The reason nothing gets done, as Bill Raggio’s passing and Olympia Snowe’s retirement highlights, is not that nobody believes in anything anymore but that they believe in partisan advantage above all else.
Matt Lewis, a conservative blogger, wrote a short piece in the wake of the Limbaugh remarks calling for more civility. As if to make his case — and mine here — leftist policeman Media Matters immediately derided him for his “self-serving nonsense.”
Really?
As I have said before, I don’t necessarily think more civility is the answer to what ails the body politic. Fewer talking points, more talking to each other, maybe. But there have to be lines in public discourse, and there must be people willing to enforce them, whether it’s the right after Limbaugh’s comments or the left after Breitbart’s death.
Is that, really, too much to ask?
The importance of civility in discourse is that it doesn't get in the way of the argument being made. Limbaugh's point (without regard to it being valid or not) was completely lost in the aftermath the of words he chose to convey it.
It is an old saw, but a good one; You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Breitbart knew what he was getting into when he joined the blogging scene. I watched him once on "Real Time with Bill Maher". I disagreed with some of his statements, but it really didn't change my thinking on most of the topics discussed. The blogs are filled with rancor and partisanship and you have to sift through the rhetoric to find the occasional pearl of wisdom. I don't comment on people's death notices. As you stated, he had a wife and kids, and they deserve privacy to grieve. Kicking a deceased person for his views after he's no longer able to respond accomplishes nothing. Much of the viral partisanship is a product of FEAR. The world is changing politically and economically. PAX AMERICANA is over, as unilateral war, started by us, is now the order of the day.
Did Jon ever do an article on the ugly things Breitbart tweeted after the death of Senator Kennedy?
Anyone here familiar with the false equivalence argument?
The comparisons of the right and left are a false equivalent fallacy. To defend the right's attacks on full equality for women by comparing the left's "looking down" on one's religion isn't equivalent. Being a woman isnt' a choice. Choosing to believe that one's religion makes one superior to all others and that women should be subservient is a choice. Find a better comparison or stop trying to equate the two as the same. Breitbart employed the ugliest of tactics in setting up Acorn, Shirley Sherrod and many others. For what gain? Amusement? Political one-ups-manship? His disgusting approach was as coarse as it gets. To express relief in his passing is not a celebration, but to find a modicum of peace.
Jon - Very good article.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
@logicalandreason: I agree with the Shirley Sherrod deal. She was wrongly accused. But Acorn? They needed to go down and thank goodness Briebart did what he did.
Comment removed by moderator. Refers to removed comment.
The "Rush Limbaugh furor" reflects society's hunger to see justice served -- the vicious perpetrator became a victim, and the innocent victim Sandra Fluke survived unscathed. It only took thirty years to happen.
"Huckster" just begins to describe Rush. His lack of respect for the truth puts him in the same league with hatemongering partisan propagandists at Fox News. His orchestrated bigoted rhetoric has pitted Republicans against Democrats. He has ridiculed minorites, such as "feminazis" (femisists) and gays.
The last time I listened to his radio show he delighted in skewering and hanging up on callers who disagreed with him. I would describe his followers (dittoheads) with Jon's words today: "the let's-watch-the-cable-network-that-validates-our-point-of-view."
Rush's recent twisted words spoke so loudly and plainly that Jon argued there was no need to cross the line into the "outrageous and sulfurous" liberal comments. However, I think that drawing a distinction between "haughty and condescending" vs. "relentlessly disgusting and classless" unfortunately usually depends on whose camp you're in. Why do I hear both Republicans and Democrats insist that they espouse "live and let live"? It depends on what issue is being discussed.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Comment removed by moderator. Refers to removed comment.
Someone is making Jon's point without even realizing it.
The rationalization of one's own bad behavior in response to the perception of bad behavior by others produces an endless cycle of useless responses, no matter how well intended, sincere and informed the responses might be. The comments section after nearly every article on this website is a testament to this behavior.
Just because you can say or type it, does not mean you always should.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
When you too find crying wolf is curious to you then another race has been fed.
Breitbart was probably killed by a smart meter.
"Civility" has resulted in stident screams from K-12 "teachers" enraging parents of students into demanding more and more. Only the tea party seems to have said "NO." Our public will not listen to civility, unfortunately. So we get teachers and others who keep harping (they think politely, in civil tones) for more and more while IGNORING the larger issues and ignoring WHAT IS WARRANTED in each situation.
John, didn't your mother ever teach you "two wrongs don't make a right"? Just because there are examples of liberals criticizing people doesn't give Limbaugh a pass.
You're also wrong about the attacks on women's health care. Birth control pills are more than a method to help people choose when to have children, it is often used for medical reasons, and I speak from personal experience. A good number of women on birth control are married--both partners want to limit family size. While many women would be glad to put an aspirin between their knees, the husbands wouldn't be so happy, I'd guess.
Viagra is covered. Birth control needs to be covered. I am surprised the anti-choice conservatives aren't trying to find ways to make contraception FREE to every women who wants it. It floors me that this is a moral or religious debate when it's a health care debate.
Jon, I just love the contentious atmosphere of debates and the personal remarks and attacks that always seem to accompany these type forums. Being a registered Independent, and truly a non-partisan voter, I have a wide range of opinions. Therefore, I have a huge selection of topics and individuals, in a literal sense, to hound.
I put myself in the lions den. It is my option to do so or not. My wife, the exact opposite of me, is a prime example. You do a "Google Search" on her, and good luck trying to find out her first name. She does nothing online, and never puts herself in any social or public situation to have debate and/or a contentious situation thrown in her face. <LOL> I guess it is fair to say I more than take up the slack on that!!! Meaning, my wife would have never testified as did Sandra Fluke. Sandra put herself out there for public scrutiny and harsh criticisms from those who oppose her views. I don't believe Rush Limbaugh owes Ms. Fluke an apology for his comments. When I heard of Rush's statements, I laughed. I don't expect Jay Leno to apologize, nor David Letterman, Howard Stern, or anybody else for their personal commentary whether joking or not. Bottom line, walk into any area of the lions den, and you are sure to get bit. No one, and I repeat no one is exempt or protected from being bit from another's response to public statements made.
In my own mindset, I see myself as a pretty much tenacious and veracious commentator. I have my special targets of reporters, columnists, and other discussion room commentators that I just love to disagree with. My words and subject debates with them quite often get very personal and nasty. Many times my opponents in their responses make me laugh, even if their allegations or slanderous remarks about me are true. I appreciate their detailed thought and work that they put forth to derail and wreck my per se, "high speed train" of expressed opinions. This is the type of nature that comes from "freedom of speech" and the modern technology of communications. We should not try to control it, or regulate it, we should embrace it.
I certainly would not want to be in a discussion room where everybody agrees with each other and are patting each other on the back. How boring would that be?
Win, lose or draw in every debate, I love the right of unrestricted "freedom of speech" that we should all be enjoying. Just remember, if you don't want to be hurt, don't follow the path that may well bring it your way. Be smart the way my wife is in avoiding these situations. And finally, when you do get, in a literal sense, bit in the lions den, respond. And, respond to win the debate. Maybe it is possible to win a debate in a less contentious way, but it is not nearly as much fun.
[[Thus, we spend more time bleating about imagined wars on women]]
++++
I enjoy your column even when I disagree with you and I disagree with you on the above quote. There very definately a war on women and I have been saying this long before the Blunt Amendment, the Virginia transvaginal bill battle or the Limbaugh bruhaha. The amount of bills introduced in Congress and in statehouses around the nation that limit women's access to health services have increased exponentially since the 2010 midterms. These latest controversies have only shed light on what is being done to women around the nation. I am glad there is finally a push back.
I agree, extreme partisanship serves no good purpose! I'm a Very Independent Democrat and I'm reasonably partisan on the issues - but, this far left and far right extremism only divides America more - to the point, now, where we have become so polarized we are paralyzed, sadly!
I'm of the mind that the vast majority of Americans are not just left, or right, in truth I think most of us our moderates on most issues - though we are liberal on social issues and very conservative about economics and preserving our natural resources!
I know of no one that is FOR waste, fraud and abuse - and we can't even seem to agree on that! So, we waste countless millions, creating totally unnecessary bureacracies to ensure only the most needy get $60 in Food Assistance - while wasting BILLIONS on Corporate Welfare with a wink and a nod - this is just NUTS!
America is angry - but, we have to convert that anger into positive, productive passion!
Those that are so sure we need to return to the past, fine, let's return to the time when basic good manners, and etiquette was a bench-mark in discussion, debate and social change! Let's return to civility before we end up back in another civil war - PLEASE!
As for going on Face To Face with Jon Ralston, all I can say, from experience, is that you had better fully understand the basics of journalism, know your subject matter and be prepared! I thought this interview with, then Senator Obama, was one of the best - both held their own, and with a good-spirited sense of humor!
BTW: I love it when Jon Ralston takes Democrats to task with equal committment to holding them accountable to the facts as much as he does Republicans - that's demonstrating a NON-Partisan approach and how journalism is done professionally, and what the publc expects - and needs!
BTW: As a Father of a Daughter, having seen the on-going inequality for American Women over the past 40 years - there IS a "War On Women" - and we need to fight it, again, and follow-through until the ERA is ratified, simply because it IS the right thing to do for ALL American Women (not just our Daughters)!