One thing I have always been aware of more and more on this site is that the republicans are engaging in an ever deeper fantasy regarding rhetoric and violence.
The conservative argument goes something like this:
When someone is rude, or yells, or is generally violating the society guideline about civility, then that is just a conservative (and therefore patriotic) American exercising first amendment rights.
When someone crosses the line into violence, that person falls into one of two categories.
If the person's actions didn't kill anyone, or the waters can be muddied regarding the event, then the person may fall into the category above. (think: "he was just expressing his first amendment rights so hard it left a bruise)
But should someone over the edge be directed by the eliminationist rhetoric to do something inexcusable (aka, Timothy McVeigh), then define that person as a 'nut'. Of course no one in their right mind would do violence against an elected official (or helpless innocents or...)!
When the violence being wrought by a nut is the fulfillment of so much of the rhetoric, that will inevitably cause problems. You see, for every nut, there are a hundred more who think like that nut, but were not inspired to action (or simply remained rational enough to weigh the risk). The problem for the republicans arises because so many in their ranks genuinely admire the nuts.
The problem really comes up, though, when you start with the 'good point' talk. When a hatemonger spews hate and violent speech, people inevitably drink it up. The problem, as a 'mainstream' leader is when you rely on the following of a hatemonger for power/influence. It is hard to praise someone one month and disavow the consequences of their words the next month. Doing that doesn't help with their loyal followers.
So it is hard to praise a hatemonger for making 'good points' without linking oneself to that hatemonger. There are only two choices in that situation. Either throw in with the hatemonger and try to muddy the waters with regard to cause-and-effect, or be wishy-washy with the support for the hatemonger.
And here is where right-wingers are really duplicitous. Everyobody knows that idealizing violence leads to violence. That is why so many right leaning christian groups oppose violent video games; violent movies; suggestive TV; and certain genres of music. (for the purposes of this diary I am going to ignore the people who are afraid of people with deeper tans). So it goes without saying that eliminationist or hate speech in a political context can lead to violence too. C+L has two great articles (of many) on this: here, and here
So what does this have to do with the howling about "nutjobs!"? Simple. The closer two things are, the more work you have to do to differentiate them.
Here is how I respond to Glenn Beck's rants about nutjobs, or anyone else's for that matter:
"The very fact that you feel the need to differentiate yourself from these nutjobs means you acknowledge that it would be easy to make a mistake. That we're having a discussion about why your little caveats against violence should shield you from responsibility is far more telling about your responsibility than any wording for any caveat you could mention."
PS:
There are three reasons I see why democrats tend not to have those problems.
- Democrats are far less likely to use eliminationist rhetoric in the first place. Most democrat planks follow a 'live and let live', 'keep government out of people's personal lives' type of flow. Typecasting of certain kinds of people as 'scum' doesn't happen nearly as often.
- There aren't anywhere near the number of (potentially) violent organizations, that lean to the left as to the right. While most militias form and dissipate and never hurt anyone, they prepare for, threaten, and use violence in their language. That is how I define a 'violent' organization)
- When a left-leaning group does something unconscionable, it is roundly condemned by leadership.