Skip to comments.‘How About Those Violent Democrats?’
Posted on 10/17/2010 10:52:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
What is it that has come over Democrats lately with their use of violent imagery?
First, it was Vice-President Biden when he spoke before a Democratic Party fundraiser in Minnesota last Tuesday. During his remarks, the Vice-President said he would strangle the next Republican who talked about balancing the federal budget. (1)
The following day it was President Obama who said during a radio interview that the election of a Republican Congress in November would result in hand-to-hand combat. (2)
Now we have West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin actually firing a rifle and putting a bullet into the heart of the cap and trade bill in a television political ad. (3) Manchin finds himself staring down the barrel of an unexpectedly tough battle to hold onto the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated when Robert Byrd passed away last June.
Could you imagine the uproar that would ensue from the Left if Sarah Palin had said she would strangle a Democratic politician?
Could you imagine the howls of outrage from liberals if George W. Bush had said prior to the 2006 mid-term elections that a Democratic Congress would result in hand-to-hand combat?
Could you imagine indignation from Democrats if a sitting Republican governor running for the U.S. Senate had appeared in a political advertisement firing a rifle let alone carrying one?
Of course, we really dont have to imagine any of these things at all. Remember last March when Sarah Palins Political Action Committee produced a map with crosshairs targeting twenty Democratic members of the House of Representatives who had voted for Obamacare? (4) There was outrage from liberals across America.
Sarah Palin is targetingyes, with gun sightsHouse Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform, huffed The Huffington Post. (5)
Yet during the 2004 Presidential election campaign, the Democratic Leadership Council used a Targeting Strategy map against President Bush. The caption beneath the map read, BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margins. These states should be ripe targets for Democrats. (6)
Given that both a movie was made and a book was subsequently written about the assassination of President Bush it should come as no surprise that liberals did not object to the 43rd President being targeted with gun sights. (7) (8)
Or how about the headline that read, Whos palling around with terrorists now? Jed Lewison of The Daily Kos wrote:
Of all the images to convey about her movement, it is revealing that Sarah Palin chose one associated with violence. Palins rhetoric comes amidst a surge in right-wing extremism, a time during which she should be urging cooler heads to prevail instead of fueling the most radical elements of her base. (9)
Yet somehow I dont think Lewison is going to take Obama and Biden to task for using images associated with violence. Nor do I expect Lewison to take a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate even a conservative Democrat for firing a gun in a political ad if it keeps a Republican from gaining the seat.
Now consider what Rachel Maddow said on March 23rd edition of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC:
Its now the vernacular by which supposedly mainstream conservative politicians address their followers now. Sarah Palin tweeted to her followers today, quote, Commonsense conservatives and lovers of America: Dont retreat, and insteadreload. Please see my Facebook page. (10)
Maddow then spoke about an upcoming gun rights rally which was to take place in Washington the following month (a rally at which I might add Palin was not present.) (11) But in the space of a minute Maddow goes from Sarah Palin to Timothy McVeigh. (12) (13). Palins ideas have nothing to do with the despicable actions of McVeigh and Maddows attempt to link the two is simply pathetic.
Nevertheless, Maddows act of speciousness begs this question. Does she honestly believe there is a straight line between Palin and McVeigh? There are two possibilities. The first possibility is that Maddow sincerely believes that McVeigh is the fruit of a poisonous tree and that Palin is planting a new set of trees to bear more poisonous fruit. If that is the case then Maddow has drunk from a poisoned well from which there is no remedy. Maddow thus renders impossible any rational discussion if she cannot discern between the point of view of a mother of five and a man responsible for murdering scores of children.
But let us consider the other possibility. Suppose Maddow doesnt actually believe Palins tactics will actually cause her supporters to commit acts of violence. But if she doesnt believe it then why say such a thing at all? While Maddow might not believe it her viewers might. So why not tell her viewers what they want to hear? One could make a case that this is even more egregious. By advancing an argument she does not herself believe she is willfully misrepresenting Palins aims and objectives. In so doing she subverts the possibility of advancing a reasonable argument.
It is worth noting that conservative reaction to Obama and Bidens statements has been relatively muted. As for the Manchin ad, the reaction has been more grounded in amusement than in anger. (14)
Not for a moment did conservatives actually think Joe Manchin would come to Capitol Hill with a rifle and start shooting his colleagues.
Not for a moment did conservatives actually think President Obama was going to punch John Boehner in the nose.
And not for a moment did conservatives actually think Joe Biden was going strangle any Republican. Biden neednt have said his remark was a figure of speech. Conservatives, unlike far too many liberals, know what a figure of speech is when we hear it.
Didn’t the man child in the White House tell a group of union thugs in Philly that he would bring a gun to a knife fight?
“Bring a gun to a knife fight, strangle Republicans, and hand to hand combat.” Tell me again what this guy’s Nobel Prize was for?
I believe this happens because there is a real pathology that affects a mind that is attracted to liberal/socialist values. First, there is a significant break from reality, a magical thinking event that allows them to imagine money growing on trees. That is followed by a narcissism that allows them to believe they deserve their fair share of the magic money. That is followed by aggressive efforts to acquire that money, with the less intelligent using brute force to commit open but illegal theft, and the more sophisticated to use law, position, and power to arrange obscure but legal theft.
Part of the pathology, however, is a psychotic degree of rationalization. I don’t mean that in the sense of hyperbole, but in a clinical sense, the kind of rationalization a serious criminal uses to justify the most horrific actions. Al Capone, it is said, saw himself as one of the good guys.
Furthermore, this rationalization is confined to the imaginative powers of the affected person. Like a comedian once said, the people in his dreams were never any smarter than he was. Same rule applies here. The pathology of leftism is rooted in violence against and disrespect for the person and property rights of others. Therefore it is inescapable that their imagined projections of conservative minds would be tainted with their own violent imaginative resources. They think of us as violent because that is all they have in themselves to project onto us.
Whereas conservatives tend to the opposite rationalization. We respect the rule of law, the rights of person and property, and we have a deep expectation and hope we will reach that place in the liberal mind by peaceful, civilized means. We project that onto them because that is who we are, and we expect them to be like us.
Both rationalizations are misguided, and it is difficult to say which is more dangerous.
Thought provoking essay, I had never considered the opposing left/right mindsets quite that way. Thanks for your insight, I agree with your conclusion.
Bring a gun to a knife fight, strangle Republicans, and hand to hand combat. Tell me again what this guys Nobel Prize was for?
Something to do with being a “lightworker”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.