Voices of Crowds

Political gaffes are interesting less because of what is said, but by how their interpretation on both sides of the aisle illustrates larger political themes.  When Romney said "corporations are people too", he was likely talking about the shareholders and workers, who deserved to be included in the conversation.  But this mattered less than the way it seemed to succinctly illustrate the left's perception of conservatives caring more about the profits of big business than their negative, corrupting effects in society.

Obama's recent gaffe about what small businesses - taken out of context to mean that small businesses are wholly reliant on government, likely in fact meaning that they are not wholly unreliant (two quite different claims) - illustrate what different political sides want to focus on.

In much of our political discourse, we have arguments over gut feelings, or larger narratives with implicit assumptions, not by debating those grand philosophical ideals, but rather by quibbling with details by proxy - raising anecdotes, emphasizing facts that support our side, etc.

Romney/conservatives think liberals over-emphasize the importance of government.  Obama/liberals think conservatives underestimate importance of government.

I suppose in the end all of this stuff, marginal as it appears at the time, nibbles away into the formation of political movements over the decades.  But in the moment, it all feels a bit too much like we're all caught in a sort of molasses-like political ether in which much of what we communicate to one another is merely an expression of larger, intangible forces.

Indulging Hypocrisy

It seems to me that there is a huge gulf between the radical right, who truly believe the anti-all-government crap that seems the lifeblood of contemporary right-wing rhetoric, and the mainstream right, who enjoy the same rhetoric, while not actually believing it.  They actually believe in libraries, schools, medicare, social security, etc. But the radical right is so energetic and passionate... here's the question: why do moderates let them get away it, why do they pretend to agree?

On the left, there doesn't seem to be at all this kind of schism. You rarely hear for the outright abolishment of business. And if you did, the rest of the left wouldn't dream of pretending to agree.

I tend to think this is historical. Communism as a politically correct philosophy died a long time ago. Total free marketism is alive and well, despite routinely demonstrating massive failings. Reasonable people understand this, and advocate a mixed economy. So again, why does the right allow radical idiocy to invade their rhetoric?

I'm reminded of the radio right, in which half-truths are routinely bandied about, with a sort of wink-and-nod - we don't really think that (or do we)? It's a comfort with factual relativism that seems to baffle the left.

Ethical Rhetoric

The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1563).

“Government takeover” has been a defining phrase for the right over the past few years.   But it is just the kind of sloppy rhetorical sloganeering that drags political discourse into the mud.

The truth is that “takeover” can mean any number of things. It can mean anything from a literal annexing of private businesses by the government, to a slight increase in the government’s presence in the healthcare market – the effect of which being to put the government in the position of driving some degree of health costs in the entire market. The former is entirely untrue, while the latter is mostly true. And basically the same can be said about government “takeover” of the banking or auto industries.

The problem is that when most people think of “takeover”, they think of the former. This is helpful rhetoric because while there is a kernel of truth to it, the claim can be backed away from as “hyperbole, while retaining all the demagogic punch and avoiding the impression that one is outright lying.

I suppose being a mealy mouth weasel doesn’t bother some people, but I’m not comfortable with it. Nor am I comfortable going one step further and offering for my defense the claim that “well, they do it to”. I suspect this is an Achilles heel of the left – not being as comfortable playing dirty.

However, in the end I imagine it is mostly about a conscious awareness of what we are doing. To the extent that the right is more comfortable playing games with language and emotions, I don’t think it is really a conscious choice to behave unethically. I think they simply aren’t as reflective intellectually in general.

Illegitimacy and Violence

I've written this before, but these are the two questions I have in the debate over violent political rhetoric:

A) Is the large quantity of extreme rhetoric dangerous?
B) Is there more of it coming from the right?

I return to them because they still do not seem to have been answered very well.  Yet some clarity is needed in sorting out just where violent rhetoric comes from.  We know that it has historically been responsible for violence, and so we must think seriously about what is being said.

I'm not sure we can be certain about the first question. But it seems perfectly reasonable to assume so, especially considering the acts of violence we have seen that were specifically political, the worst of course being the Oklahoma City bombing.

I think we can be very certain about the second question. While extreme or violent rhetoric can also be found on the left, it doesn't exist in anywhere near the volume it does on the right. I think the main reason for this is that the violent language always seems to come from a sense of deep mistrust of an institution's legitimacy. In the 60's this was the government for the left. For eco-terrorists, this would be logging companies. For animal rights groups, research labs. But for the most part, the left has become quite centrist, favoring a strong balance of government and free markets.

The right however, is still in many forms preaching the illegitimacy of the government. Very high-profile figures on the right have expressed this view in clear language. It is no wonder then, that the instances of obviously violent rhetoric were based on this assumption, that our very existence as a nation is imperiled by an oppressive, illegitimate government.

There are many drivers of this view. And every paranoid conspiracy promoted on the right has been rooted in the question of legitimacy: FEMA camps, birthers, socialism, death panels, federal reserve, NAFTA highway, gun confiscation. These are all part of a narrative that the government is somehow on the verge of radical transformation, an imminent threat to our most basic liberties. Even without the crazy conspiracies, a modest form of this narrative is driving at least a majority of the current conservative movement.

So when people point to specific statements and argue over whether it was or was not a "call for violence", I think they are missing the larger point. An ecosystem which views the government not just as wrong yet functioning democratically, but wrong and functioning undemocratically, is defining that government as illegitimate. This is the definition of tyranny. And, as many on the right have pointed out, extra-governmental problems require extra-governmental solutions.

This is actually a popular debate happening on the right right now. At what point are we justified in violent revolt against an illegitimate government? It is a question that our founders obviously grappled with, and the tea party is a literal reflection of that sentiment. Whether you agree or not, the right is very concerned that we are reaching that point. Thus the talk of 2nd amendment rights/remedies, secession, and the "shredding of the constitution".

The left is simply not there. We were, decades ago. But not today. The reason you don't hear the same kind of rhetoric on the left is that there is no narrative for it, like there is on the right. Is the rhetoric dangerous? I think so. I think it comes from the exact place that the Oklahoma City bombing came from, along with countless militia groups and weapon stock-pilers. Most of this is just lazy thinking. And I'm not so worried that there will be any kind of armed revolt. But it is a climate in which weirdos can thrive. If serious thinkers are calling the government illegitimate, then it stands to reason that unserious thinkers are going to take the next step and blow up a building.

Political Rhetoric and Violence

Apparently, the Sarah Palin's staff is now claiming that the infamous "cross-hairs" campaign poster, pointed to by many as evidence of the kind of overheated right-wing rhetoric that may have led to the Rep. Giffords shooting, was really intended to be a "surveyors" symbol all along.  Mark Kleiman points to the broader context and the right-wing pattern of using the language of violence.

The political debate over the degree to which rhetoric played a role in the shooting, if any at all, has been polarized as usual.  The refrain on the right is defensive, and points to evidence of extreme rhetoric on the left during the Bush years.  But this seems pretty wrong to me. I'd pose a couple of questions.

First, is it true that there is a lot of extreme, dishonest and dangerous rhetoric coming from the right? And second, is there an equivalent amount coming from the left – either now, or in the past 10-20 years?

I used to listen to a lot of AM radio in the 90′s – Michael Savage in SF. When Oklahoma City happened it seemed to fit right into the paranoid narrative: the government is illegitimate, conspiracy theories and the endless likening of liberalism to creeping communism. This was all over the airwaves. The callers would frequently start talking about violent revolution, the hosts muting them with a wink. If anything, the rhetoric seems to have gotten worse, with FOX news turning up the volume to eleven.

I don’t ever remember things getting this bad on the left, even during the worst days of the Bush administration, from the left’s perspective. I think there are numerous reasons for this, the largest being the left’s disinterest in guns and violence in general, as a cultural matter. What I don’t understand though, is the right’s seeming willingness to be entertained by so many obviously immoral media personalities. And I mean immoral in the sense that they are routinely meanspirited and dishonest. They revel in ad hominem attacks, and traffic endlessly in overgeneralizations and transparent falsehoods. The left just has never had this. AM radio is completely dominated by the right. MSNBC is giving FOX a run for their money, but their audience pales in comparison.

I suppose you could chalk some of this up to the generally liberal, or at least centrist, slant of the mainstream media, which likely alienates many rural and conservative citizens. But how could you trade something like NPR for Rush Limbaugh? What am I missing? Why isn’t there at least an NPR equivalent on the right, something that attempts serious journalism, treats people with respect and isn’t more akin to the Jerry Springer show than intellectual engagement? Given the obviously large size of American conservatism, fact that there hasn’t been anything built up on the right that isn’t largely mean, dishonest or vapid would seem distressing. If all liberals seemed to be interested in was a sort of Air America-style format, I’d really worry about the seriousness of the left.