A shocker.
Never mind that Frum "qualified" his directive. More on the flip.
Here's what Frum said today:
If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him. But he is not.
So let's summarize. David Frum writes a paragraph in which the following words collide:
- Barack Obama
- fascist
- Nazi
- death panels
- kill the old and infirm
- overthrowing the American constitutional republic
- somebody should shoot him
- not
Thank the Lord for that last, er, bullet.
"If...if...if..." I'll bet you a nickel that many, many , many people will read Frum's words and decide that they do indeed believe that Obama is in fact all of the things Frum says (tepidly) that he is not.
Then what?
This isn't good, people.
UPDATE: In response to commenters who believe Frum meant well, I say this: Frum could have made exactly the same point while excising the offending passage.
Try it and tell me I'm not right:
It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric. If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic—if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.
But he is not. [Obama] is an ambitious, liberal president who is spending too much money and emitting too much debt. His health-care ideas are too ambitious and his climate plans are too interventionist. The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable.
See? Same point without the inflammatory rhetoric.
Still not satisfied? How about changing this:
"...somebody should shoot him."
to this:
"...somebody might shoot him."
No harm no foul.
It's the least Frum (and his editor) could have done.
UPDATE 2: To the commenter who said, "You are making judgments based on the writer, instead of on the words they've written, and that's not something an editor with integrity would do," I say this:
What harm is done by excising the offending passage? Does it change his meaning one bit?
And if I leave the words in, what more do they do to help make Frum's point more cogently?
Can you tell me?