By Cliff Montgomery – Jan. 11th, 2011
Since the tragic shootings in Arizona, well-intentioned people from across the political spectrum have called for a strong change in the tone of social debate in this country.
The idea seems to be that strong debate somehow immediately leads to murder. But we at The American Spark believe that the problem is not strongly-held beliefs, or statements of understandable frustration and outrage.
These are frustrating and even outrageous times – it’s frankly delusional to call for an end to talk which releases such pent-up emotions.
We believe the problem is not in the tone of a debate, but in the open calls for murder and acts of intimidation which have become standard political procedures for a sub-group of Americans.
Debate is the essence of a free society – and yes, even expressions most of us find tasteless or outrageous are necessary actions if people are to be truly free.
The 19th Century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out the necessity of free speech, even if the expressions are harsh or tasteless:
Freedom…is to the machinery of the state what the safety-valve is to the steam engine: every discontent is by means of it immediately relieved in words – indeed, unless this discontent is very considerable, it exhausts itself in this way.
If, however, it is very considerable, it is as well to know of it in time, so as to redress it.
It is the current slate of brutal economic and social conditions that has led to our harsh and even furious debates – the harsh debates did not mysteriously lead to feelings of misery and frustration in a formerly happy populace.
Oppress much of that debate, and those feelings of powerlessness and rage will have no form of release. This will not stop violence – in fact it will almost certainly increase it, since violence then will become the only means of expression for many.
Let’s be clear, there has been an ugly change in politics over the last few years. But it has nothing to do with debate – outrageous or otherwise.
A reactionary sub-group of Americans have increasingly utilized acts of intimidation and even calls for the murder of political opponents in their quest for power.
Such moves are not acts of debate. They in fact are clearly meant to end debate, to smother and stifle it.
A partial list of guilty parties:
- At her rallies during the 2008 U.S. presidential race, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin occasionally accused Barack Obama–then the Democratic presidential nominee–of “palling around with terrorists.” Some in the crowd shouted “kill him” after Obama’s name was mentioned. Palin did not correct the shouters.
- FOX pundit Glenn Beck gleefully told a “joke” about poisoning former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Fellow neo-conservative commentator Ann Coulter told a “joke” about doing the same thing to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. “After a while, when people keep telling the same hurtful ‘joke,’ ” wrote Huffington Post columnist Robert Elisberg last year, “what they’re also telling you is how they think.”
- In 2009, several members of the Far Right brought guns to town hall meetings on the Democratic health care proposal, purposely creating a sense of violent tension.
These actions, and others like them, are neither performed by nor endorsed by all conservatives. Far from it. But the conservative movement has allowed these actions to continue for far too long. In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter what were the political beliefs of the shooter in Arizona. Why? Because unstable people are nearly sure to act if they feel a segment of the American public has accepted violence and intimidation as legitimate means of action.
And the matters discussed above are not instances of harsh “debate” – they’re meant solely to end debate through violence and intimidation.
They’re not acts of discussion, they’re acts of thuggery. And they need to be stopped.
