This is written in support of Troutfishing's important diary Good God, Eliminationist Hate Speech Does NOT Belong Here. I am not going to restate his basic argument or address any of the points in the lively discussion that has ensued.
Rather, I want to document why the diary to which he is responding constitutes eliminationist rhetoric by the very definition of the guy who wrote the book on it. I will aver that the words at issue here are not so toxic that they will incite violence in and of themselves. But Troutfishing is right to call on us to consider what it means to adopt and cheer on eliminationist rhetoric. It is also disturbing how many commenters find the words are justified because they represent "the truth" or that no one should take the words seriously because they are just a "metaphor." People who engage in eliminationist rhetoric often offer the same justifications.
Troutfishing is responding to this part of another diary:
"the right-wing is a cancer on our nation. The people that comprise their base are the most irrational, unreasonable, and dangerous bloc of citizens in our nation. They are insane. I truly believe that. They must be marginalized and beaten to a pulp at every turn... They are truly the lowest form of human life, and are beneath contempt."
Last year I wrote an article about the book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, by journalist and blogger, Dave Neiwert.
There has been much discussion of the culture of incivility lately, epitomized by the recent indecorous outbursts of Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC) during President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress, tennis star Serena Williams toward a linesman at the US Open, and rapper Kayne West at the Video Music Awards. But the rhetoric and the underlying attitudes that Neiwert is getting at are far more serious—and harder to come to grips with—than mere boorish behavior by public figures.
"What motivates this kind of talk and behavior," Neiwert writes of the sometimes surprising viciousness from otherwise ordinary people, "is called eliminationism: a politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination."
Neiwert stresses that eliminationist rhetoric "always depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic. A close corollary—but not as nakedly eliminationist—is the claim that opponents are traitors or criminals and that they pose a threat to our national security."
"The history of eliminationism in America and elsewhere," he writes, "shows that rhetoric plays a significant role in the travesties that follow. It creates permission for people to act out in ways they might not otherwise. It allows them to abrogate their own humanity by denying the humanity of people deemed undesirable or a cultural contaminant."
In light of this, let's look one more time at the words at the center of this discussion:
"the right-wing is a cancer on our nation. The people that comprise their base are the most irrational, unreasonable, and dangerous bloc of citizens in our nation. They are insane. I truly believe that. They must be marginalized and beaten to a pulp at every turn... They are truly the lowest form of human life, and are beneath contempt."
These words fit the definition of eliminationism outlined by Neiwert. Democracy requires a high level of tolerance to make it work. I think we owe it to ourselves and to the values that I think most of us espouse, to know the difference between speaking forcefully and engaging in eliminationist rhetoric.