Right-wing terrorists and the rhetoric that feeds them

November 13, 2006 in Media, Terrorism

by Jay Stevens 

In the runup to the election, I wrote a post on Gather.com about the divisive rhetoric employed by the GOP – the “Nattering Nabobs of Negativity” – and how it’s permeated the Republican base, and might have been a reason for the stunning results for the Democratic Party last Tuesday.

But in the post, there was also a tacit warning that encouraging simplistic narratives around good and evil in American politics (i.e., dissent is “treason) might translate into action. After all, if you believe opposition to Iraq is betrayal of your country, and betrayal should be met with death, then it follows those that disagree with you should be killed. As proof, I cited John Couglin, who wanted me tortured, and the Ohio retiree who said someone should stick an AK-47 in liberal talk-show host Stephanie Miller’s “glory hole.”

As if to confirm this impression of right rhetoric harming the GOP, some pundits claimed the 2006 election results were a call for civility in politics. After all, moderates and independents swung heavily to the Democrats, and not necessarily for any particular set of issues or plans or agenda espoused by the party leadership. I’m sure many voters were turned off by the GOP’s consistently shrill and negative rhetoric during the election.

Those of us that expected the right to cool their ardor for extremist rhetoric were sorely disappointed. After all, many righties actually thought the election was a mandate for conservatism. So when al Qaeda hailed the results of the 2006 election, you can only guess the reaction from the right. Ultimately I’m with Steven Taylor: al Qaeda probably doesn’t understand American politics and doesn’t really care about the policies as long as George Bush is dealt a blow.

what is the likely goal here? Clearly al Qaeda is looking for any victory it can muster in a war that is as much about propaganda and perception as anything else. And again: their target audience is not us, but rather those sympathetic to al Qaeda’s cause. Of course they want to cast the elections (and Rumself’s resignation) as a victory–it is essentially at no cost to them whatsoever. The CBS story linked above uses the appropriate verb for what al Qaeda is doing: taunting.

In the post, Taylor wonders why anyone would take an al Qaeda spokesperson seriously:

Of course, part of the answer is grounded in blind partisan loyalty that sees the Republicans as somehow the sole keepers of defense and security and the Democrats as the party of appeasers and cowards. Such a dichotomy is quite incorrect, but it does infuse the thinking of many.

The bottom line is that yes, there are policy differences between the two parties, but the choice not between victory and defeat.

It would help our public discourse (as well as the policy making process) if we were all mindful of that fact.

The result of this discourse is seen in the actions of California conservative, Chad Conrad Castagana, who sent white powder and death threats in envelopes to prominent public figures who openly disagreed with the President’s war policies. Castagana was a self-identified “conservative Republican,” fan of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michele Malkin, paleo-conservative on immigration, who frequently commented on right-wing blogs.

As Evan Derkacz rightfully notes, Castagana is a disturbed individual acting alone, not to be confused with the majority of conservatives who post online, or even who subscribe to the meme that Democratic victories equal terrorist victories, who are quite normal, not prone to random death threats or potential for violence. That is, there’s no organized conspiracy to intimidate those that would dissent against the government.

But I do completely agree with Dave Neiwert:

Haters like the people Castagana claims as his heroes — Coulter, Malkin, Ingraham, just for starters — are constantly engaging in the worst kind of directed primarily at liberals. It is simply an inevitability that, when this kind of hate is broadcast to millions of people daily, some of them are eventually going to start acting it out in fashions precisely like this. And worse.

For way too long we’ve heard the idea that liberal bloggers and commentators are the extremists, but our “crime” is the desire to create a strong opposition political block to the President and the Republican Party. Our “crime” is to get involved in the political system and work for change.

And for way too long, we’ve seen right-wing provocateurs like Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh escape any semblance of criticism in traditional media venues. Coulter and Malkin often appear on mainstream news programs and national politicians – like the Vice-President – regularly give interviews to Limbaugh. It’s time these people were marginalized by viewers and the news organizations that abet them. They are hate mongers; their vitriol falls on ears all to eager to act out the fantasies fed to them.