It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
Mr. Krugman is apparently so submerged in his own personal "progressive" fiction that he can't differentiate his ass from his elbow.
First of all, exactly which party is it that, historically, deliberately, and methodically, tries to pit their concept of an "under-class" against their concept of "fat cats." I mean, who does that? Republicans or the other guys? And for what purpose? To CREATE all kinds of social problems that they can then rush in and "cure" with more government controls, more regulations, higher taxes. LESS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
Second, I've lived an awful long time -- I wager a longer time than Mr. Krugman -- and never in my life, not even during the upheavals of the 1960s, heard the kind of vitriol and name-calling that was directed against George W. Bush, particularly during the last two years he was in office, as the dems tried their god-damnedest (and I mean that literally) to lay the groundwork for a political victory in 2008. You want demonization, Mr. Krugman? How about a feature-length movie about assassinating President Bush? Does that work for you? But that was OK, because it was issued by some shit-for-brains progressive and fulfilled the fondest fantasies of you and others of your particular not-quite-human species.
Third, ALL -- and I mean every speck of it -- of the hateful and accusatory speculation and commentary surrounding this shooting in Tucson over the weekend has come from "progressives." And there's really no need to fabricate some bizarre conspiracy theory about why the "progressives" do this kind of thing. Jonathan Alter from Newsweek explains:
Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it’s terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.
I even tried to listen to Keith Overtbum on MSNBC for a time tonight, but that was just too much like cleaning up shitty diapers.
I can understand Paul Krugman's personal difficulties. I mean, here he espouses an economic theory all his life, even wins big awards for it, lands himself a big job at an Ivy League university... and then finally, finally -- O Happy Day!! -- here comes a major national economic crisis. His opportunity to apply his theories and save the nation.
So the Comrade and the marxists apply the theory... and the economy continues to circle the drain. Hero, or just nailing down the lid on the coffin of the USA? You decide. Are you better off now than you were three years ago?
Poor Mr. Krugman, to live so long and see his life's work proven nothing more than a load of crap. I'd sympathize, but he's ruining my life. So tough titties, Mr. Krugman. We've all got to just suck it up and move on as well as we can -- burdened with your bullshit and trying desperately to undo the damage you've done while we still have some assets left to try to rebuild.
So two big questions: The first in the title -- Exactly who perpetrates Krugman's "Climate of Hate"? The poor bugger in Tucson who did the shooting seems to have been following orders from the gremlins in his disturbed mind. It's doubtful that he could even identify Sara Palin or Michelle Bachman. No one in the Arizona Tea Parties ever heard of him. By all accounts, Loughner wasn't interested in politics. He's just crazy. It's that simple.
Second question: Are the Comrade and the political buffoons around him -- Dick(head) Durbin springs to mind -- actually going to try to push through even more socialist legislation and regulation in response to this? Are they actually going to use the dead and wounded to promote some half-assed agenda that has been tried and tried and tried all over the world -- and has only EVER brought destruction? Are they actually going to try it again?
Remember that guy named Brady who stepped between Ronald Reagan and his wannabe assassin? Remember his wife wheeling him around, displaying the big wound in his forehead, trying to promote gun control? Is this what "adult political discourse" has come down to in America? Or is it just a moral disgrace?
Save the Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment