It's All Fun & Games Until Someone Gets Hurt
Last weekend on a rightwing talk radio program Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) declared herself a foreign correspondent, behind enemy lines, hoping to keep her constituents "armed and dangerous" against the impending "energy tax," as she refers to the proposal of industrial cap-and-trade carbon emissions regulations. Clearly, as Bachmann's spokesperson explained, the Representative was speaking metaphorically. But there is a pattern of violent metaphor developing in the rhetoric of the minority party's leadership.
Last month, Sean Hannity's website featured a users' poll discussing the best ways to violently overthrow the government, given the choices of military coup, armed rebellion or war of secession. Now a reasonable interpretation is that this is all just fun and games. But if we stop to consider the size and tempramental diversity of their audiences, the proliferation of firearms and the passions animating the margins of our politcal discourse, it is not beyond the range of possibilities that individuals and/or groups will eventually act out these goofy fantasies with violence.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports a rise in the organization of active hate groups in the United States from 888 in 2007 to 926 in 2008. Americans are no strangers to our own brand of modern terrorism, from the anti-government militias that produced Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh who slaughtered 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to racist pseudo-religions like the World Church of the Creator that produced Benjamin Smith who murdered Northwestern basketball coach Ricky Birdsong and shot up ten other people in a shooting spree from a north side Chicago Jewish neighborhood to rural Indiana.
Not long after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) had a wild idea. On Friday, January 30, at the House Republican retreat at the Homestead Resort in Hot Springs, Virginia, Rep. Sessions said that Republican legislators ought to start thinking of themselves as "insurgents." Spurred on by the angry debate over the finer points of the economic stimulus bill, Sessions went even deeper into his quest for a GOP structural model telling editors of National Journal's blog Hotline, "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes."
Pressed for clarification, Rep. Sessions clarified, "I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency."
I admit to thinking it's clever, if even a little bit hyperbolic, to draw comparisons between the Republican Party and Hezbollah. The self-righteous faith and aggressive dogma shared by both Lebanon's "Party of God" and our own GOP remain something of an open invitation to comparison. Both parties tend to elevate religious dogma over civil law and both parties tend to indulge their militant nature, but only Hezbollah clearly did not care who got hurt. Reps. Bachmann and Sessions, however, wander carelessly from their public responsibilities the more comfortable they get with their metaphors. And their colleagues and constituents ought to say so now.
Meanwhile, Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm of Nisour Square massacre fame has rebranded itself as Xe, and is still trying to open a training camp in Illinois.
Last month, Sean Hannity's website featured a users' poll discussing the best ways to violently overthrow the government, given the choices of military coup, armed rebellion or war of secession. Now a reasonable interpretation is that this is all just fun and games. But if we stop to consider the size and tempramental diversity of their audiences, the proliferation of firearms and the passions animating the margins of our politcal discourse, it is not beyond the range of possibilities that individuals and/or groups will eventually act out these goofy fantasies with violence.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports a rise in the organization of active hate groups in the United States from 888 in 2007 to 926 in 2008. Americans are no strangers to our own brand of modern terrorism, from the anti-government militias that produced Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh who slaughtered 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to racist pseudo-religions like the World Church of the Creator that produced Benjamin Smith who murdered Northwestern basketball coach Ricky Birdsong and shot up ten other people in a shooting spree from a north side Chicago Jewish neighborhood to rural Indiana.
Not long after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) had a wild idea. On Friday, January 30, at the House Republican retreat at the Homestead Resort in Hot Springs, Virginia, Rep. Sessions said that Republican legislators ought to start thinking of themselves as "insurgents." Spurred on by the angry debate over the finer points of the economic stimulus bill, Sessions went even deeper into his quest for a GOP structural model telling editors of National Journal's blog Hotline, "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes."
Pressed for clarification, Rep. Sessions clarified, "I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency."
I admit to thinking it's clever, if even a little bit hyperbolic, to draw comparisons between the Republican Party and Hezbollah. The self-righteous faith and aggressive dogma shared by both Lebanon's "Party of God" and our own GOP remain something of an open invitation to comparison. Both parties tend to elevate religious dogma over civil law and both parties tend to indulge their militant nature, but only Hezbollah clearly did not care who got hurt. Reps. Bachmann and Sessions, however, wander carelessly from their public responsibilities the more comfortable they get with their metaphors. And their colleagues and constituents ought to say so now.
Meanwhile, Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm of Nisour Square massacre fame has rebranded itself as Xe, and is still trying to open a training camp in Illinois.
Advertisement
Actually, Nichols and McVeigh weren't members of any "militia" or paramilitary right-wing group; in his jailhouse interviews prior to his execution in 2001, McVeigh scorned such drug-store warriors. Despite all the heavy-breathing from groups like the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League, these fringe groups have miniscule memberships and zero political heft. The real danger in this country is a raft of oppressive laws - like bans on "hate speech", however that may be defined at any given moment - spurred by "hate monitoring" groups; they vampirize edgy donors with scare tales of far-right conspiracies that are nothing more than cult molehills distended to mountain-size by exaggeration and fearmongering.
March 26, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curt, but nothing I wrote assigns any genuine political clout to fringe extremist groups.
My point is that actual political leadership, particularly that of the conservative end of the spectrum, is irresponsibly agitating fringe extremists in cynical attempts to attract attention and rally support for their opposition to a liberal Democatic legislative agenda. From there it may perhaps be a matter of perspective that determines the extent of any possible threat to normal life. From my perspective, I am compelled to recall a friend and former faculty advisor of mine who still carries three of Benjamin Smith's rounds in his body.
March 27, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The start of my original reply got cut off, sorry. Take two....
Thanks for stopping by and reading, San Fernando Curt, but nothing I wrote assigns any genuine political clout to fringe extremist groups.
My point is that actual political leadership, particularly that of the conservative end of the spectrum, is irresponsibly agitating fringe extremists in cynical attempts to attract attention and rally support for their opposition to a liberal Democatic legislative agenda. From there it may perhaps be a matter of perspective that determines the extent of any possible threat to normal life. From my perspective, I am compelled to recall a friend and former faculty advisor of mine who still carries three of Benjamin Smith's rounds in his body.
March 27, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one can argue American conservativism is free of extremists, and it's possible some may be rabble-rousing those elements in their camp capable of blinkered violence (especially in their desperate fix, when conservative ideas are as popular as athletes' foot), but a deliberate, organized scheme to goad the tin-foil hats? I don't they've slipped that far... Such a ploy is too dangerous, given the volatile, loop-headed nature of that crowd, and could too easily be the rightwing's self-inflicted coup de grace.
March 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Americans are no strangers to our own brand of modern terrorism, from the anti-government militias that produced Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh who slaughtered 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to racist pseudo-religions like the World Church of the Creator...."
Great essay. This line really got to me. I have thought about this many times. I do not think any of these people were Muslims or Arabs...
I think Keith O and Rachel went over the accusations that Obama was:
A Socialist
A Communist
A Fascist
A Totalitarian power grabber.
Pundits, pols and even Newt. You go to Media Matters and see their series on rush and you begin to understand that this hate mongering does not originate in somebody's garage, but on cable and the radio.
March 27, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks dickday. Maybe you could help lally get it.
March 28, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I admit to thinking it's clever, if even a little bit hyperbolic" - indeed.
It's nothing but partisan tit-for-tat. They are trying to energize the base, we are trying to paint them as terrorists. It's the age-old game of positioning, just perhaps more low and cynical than before.
You could argue that it's not unexpected to see this from the Party of No. But it is revealing to see the same exact thing from the Party of Hope and Change.
March 27, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
To find any militant liberal equivalent in this dynamic necessarily leaves you following the ridiculous example of the McCain-Palin campaign and relics like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the Weather Underground. There just aren't any militant liberal counterparts to those on the conservative end of the spectrum.
March 27, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't. You did.
March 27, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it.
March 28, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not going to comment, but I feel I must.
Living where I do, in proximity to one of the 'militias', I am very aware of 'activities'. It doesn't take a big spoon to stir up fringe groups. Just because they are shunted off to the margins most of the time does not mean they are harmless. The self-righteous fringe are ever at the ready to answer the call, real or imagined. Paranoia on my part? Well, why don't you walk a mile in my moccasins before you make that call.
Bachmann and Sessions are being verbally irresponsible. Sarah Palin did the same during the campaign, calling out to the 'real' Americans. Their stupidity floors me.
March 27, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is scary at time Flower. The rhetoric is getting worse and worse and scaring up the nutsos
March 27, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It never ceases to amaze me the difference beyween the 2 parties. Dems calling everyone to work together, repubs coming up just short of calling for a coup of sorts...frightening!
March 27, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I admit to thinking it's clever, if even a little bit hyperbolic, to draw comparisons between the Republican Party and Hezbollah. The self-righteous faith and aggressive dogma shared by both Lebanon's "Party of God" and our own GOP remain something of an open invitation to comparison. Both parties tend to elevate religious dogma over civil law and both parties tend to indulge their militant nature, but only Hezbollah clearly did not care who got hurt. Reps. "
It's also completely inaccurate to compare the GOP to Hezbollah based on your faulty description of the "Party of God". Either you know nothing about Hezbollah or are ignoring reality in favor of perpetuating a counterproductive bogeyman stereotype.
Hezbollah clearly does not place "religious dogma over civil law" as they are an accepted and major part of Lebanon's political system and government. How can that reality be squared with baseless accusations that are completely devoid of facts?
"Hezbollah doesn't care who gets hurt". Oh, Bullshit, Bar. The now infamous statement of Nasrallah that he regrets the capture of Goldwasser and Regev because of the devastating Israeli response and the long-standing stance that Hezbollah would participate in Lebanon's endless sectarian violence is completely at odds with your mischaracterization.
Even to use the catch-all "insurgency" to promote the GOP=Hezbollah is bogus. Hezbollah arose to repell an occupation by Israel...a fact that is always conveniently ignored by too many supporters who fear it.
Hezbollah is not an "insurgency" unless one considers that the bloody Israeli occupations of Lebanon somehow made it the legitimate government of Lebanon.
We have plenty of home-grown examples of "insurgents" who fit your criteria such as the murderous religous fundies who attacked clinics and killed physicians and the examples of cults following Koresh and Jim Jones.
Your faux example is gratuitous and "too clever by half".
Please. Leave Israel out of what is an AMERICAN political issue.
March 27, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
Hezbollah has its own army, so I would question your own grip on the fact to the extent that Hezbollah is "an accepted" part of Lebanon's government, if not at least a "major part." The Lebanese army after all was to have seized control of its southern border and disarmed Hezbollah when the UN confirmed Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon nine years ago.
For the record, you brought it up.
March 28, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Lebanese consider Hezbollah a "resistance", not a militia, which was how the UNSC has defined those to be disarmed.They also have refused to disarm them (insisting it's a domestic matter), knowing full well that Hezbollah is the only entity than can defend the country against Israel, thanks to the US/Israeli determinations of what kind of weapons the Lebanese Army is allowed to have. Which doesn't include anything that can shoot down IAF bombers.
Hezbollah members run for election, serve in the Parliament and as Ministers...yeah, they are full participants in Lebanon's democratic processes under the Taif Agreement.
It's not an "insurgency" under any definition of the word, so why pick Hezbollah as your "example"?
March 28, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
Um, that was sorta kinda the point, Lally, since it was Rep. Pete Sessions who models his idea for a GOP insurgency from the Taliban (see the link up there in the fourth paragraph).
March 28, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink