I'm also posting this on my personal blog. His passing today has brought out a lot of strong, emotion-filled reactions, pleas for class, dismissals of the pleas for classiness, and on and on and on.
I've seen a few themes today to which I feel I must respond.
Take a look down below.
I know full well that people will feel what they feel and say what they want to say. I can't control that. My plea with all of you is that you be willing to see this from another angle.
I'm fully aware of Breitbart's disgusting, vile comments in the wake of Ted Kennedy's passing. His activities are well-documented. I also know how ugly people were after George Tiller was murdered. I realize that people on the right base their hatred on delusions and fact-free stories. That said, I would guess that most, if not all of them sincerely believe their stances are based on a righteous cause. That they're on the side of truth and justice. When the shoe is on the other foot and the same scenarios play out on Free Republic, Red State or another right wing internet watering hole, many probably dismiss admonitions to remain civil and classy as silly just the same as many here did today. Heck, peak at those old comment threads (at your own risk) and you may find pejoratives towards "civility hall monitors" - or whatever terms they may choose, and gripes against "false piety". They may even had commented that such admonitions amounted to "whitewashing" Kennedy's or Tiller's legacies. Remember, many on the right consider Kennedy as the embodiment of evil on the left.
Now many of us were appalled at what Breitbart said after Ted Kennedy died, and equally so at how that was celebrated. Rightfully so. Ask yourselves this, and look at it honestly. How many of us who were appalled at that are now dismissing calls for class and civility on the heels of Breitbart's death as a kind of phony morality? If you looked at those comments on right-wing blogs and said or thought "stay classy" - why is it now OK for us to behave in the same manner?
Some of you have suggested that Shirley Sherrod and even Jesse LaGreca would of course show magnanimity today because they are public figures and what they say will be put under extra scrutiny. But the rest of us, the rank and file members of an online community who hide behind the anonymity of a screen name, can't be expected to do the same and are thus justified in making hateful remarks. Let's not worry our pretty little heads about them. What are the chances of many people reading them anyway?
Remember how disgusting the comments were on the Fox News website in reaction to Whitney Houston's passing? We were rightly disgusted by them. Many of those comments were also from anonymous posters hiding behind a screen name.
Since when do we advance our cause or exercise self-improvement by holding ourselves to a lower standard? I thought being progressive meant belief in progress, in both the human race and in our own personal lives.
Let me expand on the self-improvement and standards of behavior a little bit. Some of you commended Shirley Sherrod for being a graceful, classy person, and were right to do so. What you then did after was lament how you couldn't be as classy and graceful as her. Maybe you're right and I also don't hold a candle to her when it comes to that. but could it possibly be that we find conducting ourselves in that manner difficult and thus, leave it untried? Are we sure we aren't selling ourselves short here. Would it kill us to at least aspire to that?
Another disturbing thing about today is how a few have now "lost a little respect for" Jesse LaGreca or hold him in lower esteem now due to his reactions to what transpired today. Some were so cynical about his diary they insinuated less than noble motives for him posting it, as "trying to impress somebody" - as if he were selling out. A couple of commenters used the occasion to dig up a few comments and diaries he previously wrote to accuse him of rank hypocrisy, as if things said in the heat of a tense debate are the same as doing the equivalent of an endzone dance after an adversary dies.
Come again? Jesse LaGreca will continue to be a feisty, unapologetic advocate for truth, for justice, equality, and for those who don't have access to wealth and power. He's about to get his own show, and I say that his comments today reflect someone who will be highly respected by many for his efforts. He may not win over the establishment, but that's not his goal.
I myself am far from perfect in these things. I have used incendiary rhetoric in the past. Sometimes I still do. Sometimes it was uncalled for. Not every incidence of it warrants us getting the vapors. Still, we would do well to look to the example of Jesse, Shirley Sherrod, and Media Matters on how to comport ourselves.
Acknowledging the humanity of a political foe who is no longer with us, even a foe who often engaged in the politics of personal destruction and who failed or refused to see the humanity of us, is not "whitewashing" that person's history. It's not papering over anything. It's simply being a decent human being.
Update 1: Let's be clear. I am not saying in any shape or form that the reactions by progressives over Andrew Breitbart's death are equivalent to the reactions of Fox News devotees to Whitney Houston's death, or the reactions from the right to Ted Kennedy's or George Tiller's death. Please absorb again what I said about people on the right often hating out of nothing but sheer fantasy and delusion. Sorry for not making that more abundantly clear in the original. My only point there was that those folks see no need to concern themselves with civility because they're talking about someone they hate. Of course we're not exactly the same as them on this. It still holds true, though, that we can fall into the same trap of justifying ill will towards our adversaries. That the adversary in question was a bitter, vile, hate-filled being who got his kicks in destroying people is beside the point I'm making there.
Update 2: Can't locate any links, and don't know if this story is true or legend, but I remember hearing a story about the Nuremberg trials dealing specifically with Adolf Eichmann. The story says that a Jewish observer found it remarkable in witnessing the trial that Eichmann was fully human, plus it struck him that it could have easily been him in Eichmann's spot. Can anyone confirm or deny this story? True or not, it's a story about the humanity of a higher-up in arguably the most well-known example of human cruelty in history.
Update 3: People on all sides are acting like 8-year-olds about this. And I'll say this - equivalence schmivalence. It's not about who is the most heinous. It's not a contest. Many of us are aware of Matt Taibbi's column about it. I find the column over-the-top incendiary and odd. Praising Breibart, even with feint praise, over what he did with ACORN? Really? You base your reaction to Breitbart's death on how AB himself would have wanted you to respond? Based on how Breitbart himself would have acted? Seriously? More jackass, disgusting comments on Twitter and in response to Taibbi's column itself - from all sides. Plus - Obama and Soros are now responsible for AB's death? Some people will say anything as long as it sufficiently riles up the base.
A couple of comments on the page to me say it best:
I certainly respected your opinion and point of view until the ending there. Go to hell? Really? If one can't have a civil debate about something, then I guess we're in more trouble then imagined. Frankly, like I said, I don't care for Andrew Breitbart or his beliefs. But he has a family, children, a wife, parents, siblings, etc., who are mourning. And if you've ever lost someone close to you in your family, then you would understand why it would be a pretty sad thing to have to read some hit piece publication declaring them a douche.
Look, I don't believe in what he believed, clearly, that's a certainty. But I do have enough courage to say hey, regardless of partisan hack politics, I can take the high ground as opposed to taking the lowest of low roads by publishing this type of vitriol.
If you don't agree, great, that's your right, as is the right of the person publishing this article. Where I have a problem is it being under the guise of Rolling Stone, which shouldn't allow this type of mockery, because where exactly does the hate stop?
I don't apologize for trying to be civil in an already uncivil and violent world. I don't apologize for attempting to bring peace to a nation and a world that is littered with wars and hate mongering. Breitbart was my many accounts one of the leading contributors to the separation of our people, but by no means would I degrade his death as if it's something to celebrate. If we can't accept multiple voices and varied opinion (as asinine as they may seem), then we will never progress to the point of an understanding between our beliefs. He may not have preached that, but we must, and by taking the high road, you're not lowering yourself of your standards. Put the ego aside, allow your pride to be shun, and respect the fact that this mans family will mourn his pre-mature death.
Partisan politics has caused enough harm and pain amongst us all, can't we just take a step back for one second and realize that it's not worth all this angst and hate?
And this:
I like your honesty, but the ACORN part of your article was a little strange.
I still don't see the "inspired humor" in a white kid dressing up as a black stereotype (abusive pimp). I get the feeling the impostor kid would have used blackface if it didn't ruin his disguise. How is that even remotely funny? Inspired? Are we hankering as a society for the return of minstrels? Maybe I'm out of the loop?
Even if someone said something as an ACORN worker, that in no way means the entire organization needs to be demolished and defunded by Congress. I could find someone saying similarly stupid things in just about any organization: does this mean we should be destroying entire groups for words uttered by a lowly employee? Civilization would burn.
I forfeit Breitbart nothing for destroying a great institution for low income communities via edited video lies. You shouldn't, either.
Also, you forgot to mention how Breitbart ruined Shirley Sherrod's career by editing her comments into a seemingly racist tone. Remember how her dignity was crushed from all sides by a Government and White House condemnation?
When Breitbart wasn't guilty of deception, he was going for the obvious low hanging fruit (like that in Weiner's underwear). When he was doing his "best work", he was flat out lying and harming innocents. What a legacy!
Maybe one of his protege can come along and edit this comment Breitbart style into a positive comment on him.
Good luck.
And Nicole Sandler says the article makes her love him even more. Nicole, I love what you do, and I largely love Taibbi's work, but, come on. Think about what you're endorsing here.