…and the politics of blood libel.
If you really want to elevate civility in public discourse, you could start by not falsely accusing your political opponents of being accomplices to murder. But that’s not really their goal. Their goal is to quash any opposition to their agenda.
[Update a few minutes later]
Violence in American politics tends to bubble up from a world that’s far stranger than any Glenn Beck monologue — a murky landscape where worldviews get cobbled together from a host of baroque conspiracy theories, and where the line between ideological extremism and mental illness gets blurry fast.
This is the world that gave us Oswald and Bremer. More recently, it’s given us figures like James W. von Brunn, the neo-Nazi who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in 2009, and James Lee, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel last summer to express his displeasure over population growth. These are figures better analyzed by novelists than pundits: as Walter Kirn put it Saturday, they’re “self-anointed knights templar of the collective shadow realm, not secular political actors in extremis.”
This won’t stop partisans from making hay out of Saturday’s tragedy, of course. The Democratic operative who was quoted in Politico saying that his party needs “to deftly pin this on the Tea Partiers” was just stating the obvious: after a political season rife with overheated rhetoric from conservative “revolutionaries,” the attempted murder of a Democratic congresswoman is a potential gift to liberalism.
But if overheated rhetoric and martial imagery really led inexorably to murder, then both parties would belong in the dock. (It took conservative bloggers about five minutes to come up with Democratic campaign materials that employed targets and crosshairs against Republican politicians.) When our politicians and media loudmouths act like fools and zealots, they should be held responsible for being fools and zealots. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the darkness that always waits to swallow up the unstable and the lost.
But expect the liars and demagogues to continue to do it for perceived political gain.
[Update a couple minutes later]
The “Progressive” climate of hate. A ten-year retrospective.
I think people who are wrongly blaming Sarah Palin, Glen Beck,etc DO want to elevate the civility of discourse, and are stuck in an unfortunate anger feedback loop. And I don’t want to irritate you, but you’re inadvertantly part of the problem, by daily attributing malevolence to when incompetence would do.
It is hard to elevate the civility of discourse when you’re mad, and so they are failing to elevate it. Most people are really bad at it – me included. I don’t know how to write a better, more civil comment, and you don’t seem to know that people are generally really bad at almost everything.
Do you have any friends on the left who you talk to face to face? Ask them if they want to quash their political opposition; ask them if they want to quash you. I bet you’ll find they know political opposition is essential to a democracy, and they just want civility.
I have a few face-to-face friends on the policital left. Their vitriol towards Palin, towards the new governor of Iowa (before he was even seated), towards the new Republican majority in the US House and the Iowa House, are all palpable, and they DO say things about quashing their political opponents. There is no civility in their discussions, and any attempt to bring any in is usually met with derision.
Which is also why many of those people are no longer considered “close friends”, but merely “friends”, and also why I avoid political discussions with them at any opportunity.
Bob, wanting to believe you’re a nice guy, we have to believe that you are just naive.
People that really care are angry at the gunman… not his gun, not his bullets, not even his political philosophy. People that care are angry at the bastard that did it. Extremely angry and they care for and about their political opponents and their families.
Those smearing others don’t care. They don’t really give a damn about who was shot, who died, who was injured… no, they’ve got bigger fish to fry regardless of the truth.
Yes, theres plenty of anger all around. But those that really care about people more than politics know where to direct that anger. Those lying and smearing do not get a pass because they themselves are not innocent. They themselves actually have blood on their hands because they keep the cycle going. If people didn’t have to spend so much energy responding to lies and smears they could focus on real problems.
You have a lot in common with Bill O’Reilly. Did you know that Bob?
Bob, come to Seattle. Pick a -single- topic on which to deviate from the leftist party plank. Say, climate change. Pick a single sliver of that topic and choose a minor variation. Say, “I’m not positive that using an ensemble of models with mutually exclusive assumptions is valid.” Or perhaps, “Well, we are still in the recovery period from the last true ice age, it isn’t shocking that the sea level might still be rising.” Drop that into a cocktail conversation – politely, but stick to the belief stubbornly – and try to decide if what follows is “civil.”
For my part, I’ve had friends disown me for simply being “off the reservation”, you know, for not participating in the political process the way people of certain skin colors are “supposed to.” I could try asking them for you, but I doubt they’d take my calls anymore.
(I’m assuming we’re discounting the internet troll farms which routinely call for things like the “Fairness Doctrine” to get Limbaugh et. al. off the air…)
So Mike Kelly’s brother aboard the ISS made this statement including the comment about “irresponsible words.” (From Space.com) For obvious reasons we should cut him some slack, but it just goes to show how deeply embedded is the meme that _someone_ other than the shooter is somehow responsible when something like this happens. :
“We have a unique vantage point here aboard the ISS,” Scott Kelly said before the moment of silence. “As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not. These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words. We are better than this. We must do better.”
After I commented, Rand quoted a Democratic party operative. Obviously my comment doesn’t imply to him, but I do think they do apply to the typical Fox News hater.
Ken, I think Bill O’Rielly was at his best when he was interviewing Obama. I’d love to see more of that.
More recently, it’s given us figures like James W. von Brunn, the neo-Nazi who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in 2009, and James Lee, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel last summer to express his displeasure over population growth
I don’t fully agree with that. Not trying to elevate those wackos, but I think willingly looking at this, raising your gun, pointing it, and pulling the trigger places this animated item on another plane. One that is fully sub-human.
Well, yes. On the other hand, my (lengthy but long-since ended) experience in politics is that no matter what you advocate, someone, somewhere, will call you a baby killer.
What I think distinguishes this particular pathology is that no matter how many times it fails, it pops right up again whenever someone thinks that their imaginary villain has finally appeared in the real world. McVeigh was an atheist (and, apparently, so is Loughner), Rudolph a Nietzschean, Kaczynski a luddite (with beliefs virtually, and notoriously, indistinguishable from those of Al Gore), the DC snipers Afro-American and some kind of fringe Muslim variant, Major Hasan a Muslim, Roeder a member of a fringe sect who had abandoned his own family (all of whom characterized him as mentally ill), Dr Bishop a leftist, Stack a leftist, Lee a leftist …
Not one of them was the “Christianist” cartoon character so beloved of a certain mindset. Nonetheless there is a substantial belief system out there that demands that such people exist and commit acts of terror. And no matter how tenuous the connection, its adherents will insist that a terrorist was somehow inspired by Beck/Bush/Coulter/Palin/Rove/whoever – rather like 9/11 was caused by American foreign policy or planned and executed by Mossad.
So Mike Kelly’s brother aboard the ISS made this statement including the comment about “irresponsible words.” (From Space.com) For obvious reasons we should cut him some slack, but it just goes to show how deeply embedded is the meme that _someone_ other than the shooter is somehow responsible when something like this happens.
A commenter ar NASASpaceflight.com said that Mission Control was beaming CNN coverage to the ISS, so that would explain where he got the idea.
Do you have any friends on the left who you talk to face to face? Ask them if they want to quash their political opposition
Actually, most of my friends and family that are conservative rarely talk about politics. They don’t follow the news; they don’t tend to debate issues; but they do tend to pay attention to friends and family. All things local and such…
Most people I know that are Democrats will be happy to tell you what they are and what they think. They, as Obama would put it, like to argue with neighbors, get in their face. Personal problems seem to have exterior causes that require exterior solutions.
I grew up being taught that the best way to end a friendship is to talk about politics and/or religion. Best to keep develop your own views and let others do the same. Call it, civility. I may not follow that as a commenter on this blog, but then I consider most people here acquaintences for whom I may or may not disagree.
Do you have any friends on the left who you talk to face to face?
Almost all of my meatspace friends are on the left, Bob. I spent many many years in Academe, either as a student or post-doc, or later as university faculty and associated with teaching generally. Leftism among these people is as ubiquitous as wearing glasses.
Ask them if they want to quash their political opposition; ask them if they want to quash you.
I wouldn’t dare. I keep my political opinions strictly secret, like I would an affair or a habit of embezzlement — and for exactly the same reason. I have no wish to be ostracized, talked about, and, yes, discriminated against, as without doubt I would be.
Perhaps my personal connnection to these people would change their reaction — perhaps they would say oh teabaggers and racist rightist scum should all be smothered at birth — did you know a study from Berkeley showed their morals are stunted? — but Carl, well, he’s a decent fellow. Maybe he’s just a little stupid…
But I am not taking the chance. I listen to how they speak of others with convictions on the right — as idiots, insane, dangerous, selfish, secretive, vicious, not really even human — and I have no wish to test their personal loyalty.
I bet you’ll find they know political opposition is essential to a democracy, and they just want civility.
My experience is that you’ve reversed those priorities: they want “civility” first, meaning no loud arguments and disagreements with “wisdom,” and will gladly suppress political opposition — and even individual potlical opponents — to the degree necessary to get it. These are people who believe in Order and the Church of Scientism and One Philosophy To Rule Them All more passionately than any medieval monk believed in the Immaculate Conception or the authority of the pope.
Indeed, one of the reasons for my personal journey from conformist academic leftist to impassioned lover of personal liberty is the reaction I encountered to even the slightest deviation from orthodoxy. I was appalled and alarmed by how downright vicious these people can be, and how they seem perfectly willing to destroy the person in their zealous efforts to cure him of the disease of his thoughts.
They’re nice people, Bob, leftists generally — so long as you keep them far away from the levers of political power, or power generally over other people. Left to themselves they do nice things — donate to save the whales or rescue children in Africa, conserve energy and water, ride their bikes instead of drive, patronize libraries and mom ‘n’ pop grocery stores, make lovely little crafty things to sell at farmer’s markets. It’s only when you feed them the possibility of remaking the world, i.e. other people, in a “better” way that, like crack addicts given a snort of blow, they become incomprehensibly inhuman. I don’t fully understand it.
Post-script:
It is hard to elevate the civility of discourse when you’re mad.
No kidding. It’s also hard to apologize when you screw up loudly and publically. It’s hard to focus on your kid wanting your attention to his new ability to jump down the steps three at a time when you arrive home from work exhausted and hungry and angry. It’s hard to forgive your wife for keeping her Facebook conversation with the ol’ high school flame secret for a while. It’s hard to fire someone nice because he just can’t cut the mustard. It’s hard not to blame the bank instead of your own bad judgment when your home goes into foreclosure. It’s hard not to lash out at everyone when your child is diagnosed with ADHD, or your wife with breast cancer, or yourself with heart disease.
In short, it’s hard to be a responsible reasonable adult. But, you know, that does not and should not prevent us from trying, or judging ourselves and each other when we fall short. We cannot excuse ourselves (or others convenient to our political goals) because “society” made us do it, or someone else’s unfortunate or inflammatory words, or because someone else “started it,” or did it too, or because we’re really really mad about something. That way lies the path of the weasel, the man who turns his conscience over to others and soon finds his self-respect has gone with it, if he had any in the first place.
Best to keep develop your own views and let others do the same.
Typo on my part, but reading CP’s comments, this is about the same. Should read:
Best to keep to yourself, develop your own views, and let others do the same.
As Carl suggests, I wouldn’t dare discuss my political opinions with Democrats that I know. I’ll know the Tea Party folks are dangerous when I seem them picketing outside the family home rather than on the DC mall. Until then, I know who does those type of things, and who encourages them.
There’s a big difference between the actions of some Joe who shows up wearing a T-shirt and the (presumably considered) remarks of somebody running for office or, like the 2008 Vice Presidential candidate, is a leader of the party.
Here’s a helpful “guide to the perplexed:”
A list of things it’s probably best not to say simply to avoid misunderstandings or criticisms the next time there’s an attempt on the life of a politician.
1. Refrain from telling supporters that winning the election may require active exercise of their “second amendment” rights.
2. Refrain from suggesting it’s time for “armed revolution”, even if Thomas Jefferson once kinda sorta suggested that.
3. Refrain from holding political fundraisers focused around use of automatic weapons, especially target practices with initials, name or images of your political opponent.
4. Refrain from telling supporters you want them to be “armed and dangerous.”
5. Refrain from making campaign posters with opponent’s head in gun sights.
6. Refrain from saying that bullets will work if ballots don’t.
7. Suggest that supporters not bring weapons to opponents’ political rallies.
Source.
Do you have any friends on the left who you talk to face to face?
No. I try to avoid stupid or evil people whenever possible. That leaves out everyone on the Left.
Maybe Bob-1 should take a page from John Howard Griffin and pretend to be conservative for spell, visit some Leftist haven and see what it’s like. Then he’d know first-hand and wouldn’t need to solicit experiences from strangers on the net. He could even write a book about it.
There’s a big difference between the actions of some Joe who shows up wearing a T-shirt and the (presumably considered) remarks of somebody running for office
No there’s not. Not where personal morality — i.e. one does not shoot 9-year-old girls — is concerned.
This is your problem in a nutshell, honestly. You’ve farmed out your conscience and your judgment to your “superiors” in the Party, and find it bizarre and incomprehensible (and dangerous) that your opposition does not, that we still insist that every man is an equal judge of his actions and, concomitantly, must be held equally responsible for them.
Titus, that IS what I do. And Carl will be interested to note that one of the leftist havens in question is Hyde Park. More later when I’m on a real keyboard.
Here’s a helpful “guide to the perplexed:”
I guess people who need to read Talking Points Memo are perplexed. Personally, I read the first item and immediately thought of this.
Carl Pham – no, I haven’t outsourced my conscience. I am suggesting that those people who have influence over others bear a larger burden regarding what they say and do.
It’s a throwback to my military training. The leader / commander / senior person is always held to a higher standard than a seaman. That’s the definition of “leadership” – to model appropriate behavior.
Also, Rand, I object to your headline. This isn’t a tragedy, like an earthquake. This is a God-damned crime, a monstrous volitional act, an unspeakable atrocity, the gunning down of children and old ladies. Let us not passively acquiece to the efforts of the fixers and planners to diffuse the responsibility for this thing, yammer on about how we’re all somehow responsible (because we put crosshairs on our political targets, ferfuxsake), or it’s the “poisoned atmosphere” or it’s our “failing schools” or some other such unbearable and obscenely self-serving garbage.
We know who’s responsible. A man. Let us see him put to death, as quickly and quietly as possible, and then turn to comforting the grieving as best we can.
That’s the definition of “leadership” – to model appropriate behavior.
Undoubtably. But only your side believes “leadership” is a quality you magically acquire by donning a uniform, earning a PhD, being elected to office, or holding a particular job. We believe it’s a quality of individual men and women, regardless of the clothes they wear or buttons they push daily — and we look for it as much in the private as in the general, as often in a new Congressman’s intern as in the 2008 candidate for Vice-President.
+1 to Carl. If Gerrib wants to hold a senior person to a higher standard, perhaps he could begin with a 2008 candidate for President that used metaphors of guns and violence in his rhetoric. Otherwise, Gerrib is just being partisan as usual and shouldn’t be held to any higher standard.
Carl Pham – I’m sure there’s a point buried somewhere in there, but I’m not seeing it. I mean, are you arguing that Palin isn’t a leader?
Going back to a previous point, where did I ever argue that people are not responsible for their actions? Of course the shooter is responsible. But saying that the shooter is responsible doesn’t mean everybody else is off the hook.
If the OOD runs the ship aground, he’s responsible. So are the members of his watch team, and the Captain.
Leland – I am – Sarah Palin.
Um, no. You’re not that smart, and she writes books that are best sellers.
Hey Chris, pay attention, you may learn something!
•Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
•Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
•Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
•Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
•Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
•Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
•Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
•Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
•Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
“I’m the guy standing between you and the pitchforks” when browbeating bondholders.
Reread my comment, then reread all of Chris Gerrib’s.
Case closed.
1) When a Republican Congressman gets shot in the head, then we can talk about “left-wing” violence.
2) You will note that the Democrats did NONE of the things I listed in my first post. When Obama starts putting bullseyes on people, call me.
3) “They did it too” didn’t work in kindergarten. Why would it work now?
When a Republican Congressman gets shot in the head, then we can talk about “left-wing” violence.
How about an aide to a Republican president named Jim Brady? Does he count? Should we have been pointing out the climate of hate, with all the declaration of Reagan as a warmonger, and someone who wanted to stave old people?
Or should we have noted, as we are now, that the shooter was a nutcase?
When Obama starts putting bullseyes on people, call me.
Why would he do that, when he has so many willing underlings and acolytes to do it for him?
You seem to be doubling down on the blood libel.
John B nails it but if the question was flipped and a liberal was asked how conservatives respond to their views in conversation, I suspect you would see a similar answer. What do you think Bob-1?
Talking politics with people of different views is usually argumentative and can easily grow heated regardless of affiliation.
You seem to be doubling down on the blood libel.
That’s what political whores do. They can’t use reason or facts to advocate for their views so they resort to lies, smears, and general stupidity.
But then, if he could actually use reason, he wouldn’t be a “political science” major.
Mr Lurio’s astronaut quote is a good one,
“We have a unique vantage point here aboard the ISS,” Scott Kelly said before the moment of silence. “As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not. These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words. We are better than this. We must do better.”
The only problem I have with comments like that is that like John Stewart’s rally they always seem to be aimed at conservatives and not liberals.
Sort of how like Christ G, ignores the maps with bulls-eyes from the DLCC or all of the violent metaphors that gush from the mouths of Obama, Biden, and crew.
If rhetoric really were to blame for what happened (it isn’t), then wouldn’t the actions of a liberal anarchist be more likely to be influenced from someone on that end of the political spectrum and not Palin?
Rand’s first paragraph seems to sum up the current mentality from the left. The comments always seem to go something like, “You Teabaggers need to watch your language.”
Rand – well, if you need to reach back to 1984, the year before I graduated high school, to find a similar case, that in and of itself should tell you something.
It’s not “blood libel” to point out that using rhetoric of revolution and “Second Amendment solutions” for political problems is inherently extremist. Nor is it wrong to suggest that people who are or claim to be in a leadership position should, you know, actually lead.
Is it really too hard for Palin to say, “gee, I made a mistake?” Even Speaker Boehner, not my vote for smartest politician in town, gets the idea that, for simple human decency if nothing else, maybe we ought to tone things down a bit.
Well, if you need to reach back to 1984, the year before I graduated high school, to find a similar case, that in and of itself should tell you something.
It was 1981. And how many Democrat politicians wee shot in the head between then and Saturday? Why is it fair game to complain about a “right-wing climate of violence” for this weekend’s events, but not the “left wing” one then? If there were an epidemic of such events, you might have a point, but there isn’t and you don’t.
It’s not “blood libel” to point out that using rhetoric of revolution and “Second Amendment solutions” for political problems is inherently extremist.
It is when you imply with zero evidence that it is responsible for murder by a mad man.
Is it really too hard for Palin to say, “gee, I made a mistake?”
Why should she, when she didn’t? She might consider it, of course, if people would do the same for all of the vicious attacks on her and her family (was Gabbie Giffords ever hung in effigy)? I’ll take the people who want us to “tone it down” seriously when I hear them talking specifically about that. Until then, I’ll know that it’s just a disingenuous attempt to muzzle the political opposition.
Markos Moulitsas hasn’t admitted he made a mistake. He included Giffords on the list linked in my name.
1) When a Republican Congressman gets shot in the head, then we can talk about “left-wing” violence.
To the extent that political views apply in the case of Loughner, his other mental issues aside, and given what we thus far know about his political views, it is becoming fairly obvious that he was angry with one (former Republican / Blue Dog) Democrat Congresswoman because she wasn’t left enough.
So if you want to assign a left-right moniker to Jared Loughner it’s obvious this case WAS, at least in part, left wing violence.
Or newly elected Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who fired an actual rifle in a campaign commercial. (link on my name)
Hey, State-humpers: you want to “elevate the civility of polical discourse”? Then drop the coercion. Ain’t nothing civil about the Mailed Fist.
I don’t recall political leaders of the 1980s arguing for “Second amendment solutions.” Part of the Hinkley shooting that stuck with me was how out-of-the-blue it was. People weren’t shooting out the doors of Congressmen’s offices back then.
If you make your political bones talking about “refreshing the tree of liberty” than, whether or not your rhetoric had anything to do with it, you will get asked if the rhetoric was appropriate. So, was it?
Did some leader of the Democratic party hang Palin in effigy? Or was it a couple of cranks on whom spectators called the police? Palin is a leader, or wants to be. She needs to act like one, not a petulant five-year-old with her hand caught in the cookie jar.
Or perhaps this woman shooting a rifle.
There is absolutely no evidence yet that suggests that this person was influenced by anything that Sarah Palin has said or done. If anything this appears to be born from an incident back all the way in 2007 before we even heard of Sarah Palin. He seems more insanely concerned with illiteracy and poor grammar than any narrative of the right. Hell, if anybody should have more derision directed at them it should be the tinfoil hat crowd since Loughner makes remarks about the gov’t mind controlling us by controlling grammar? Liberal pundits, never to let a good crisis go to waste, are jumping all over this so that they may one up their political opponents. To me, politicizing the mass murder of innocent people so as to brow beat your opponents is appallingly disgusting to no end.
To those that want to nonetheless use this opportunity to reexamine our political discourse need to seriously take a moment to tap the brakes and evaluate their position very carefully. Do we really want or need to tone down our political debate to a level that is safe for the mentally ill of the world? Talk about lowest common denominator… If that is the case then it is safe to say that liberals won’t be happy till the world is run like a 1st grade classroom. Because the one nimrod in the back of the class can’t stop eating paste now nobody gets to use paste. What a naive and petty view of people and the world.
I think it is the father of the little girl that was slain that is probably taking the most courageous and gracious stance in all of this, “In a free society we are going to be subjected to people like this. I’d prefer this to the alternative.” As to the alternative you know he alludes to a police state run by a elite cadre of no-nothing, busybody, do-gooders that want to coddle us from cradle to grave so as to protect you from yourself and others.
So Gerrib, what about “Kill Bush” T-shirts? Or anti-Bush protest signs that read “The only dope worth shooting is Bush”? Or depictions of Bush beheaded / hanged / with a gun to his head?
Your hypocrisy is sickening.
Fun stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ7r5ivupTU
“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years,” Angle said. “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
While not the way I would express it. Sharon angle did not say “shoot Reid so I can win.” Only a moron would think so. She was talking about voting him out. What she was saying is if elections don’t control congress it may lead to armed revolution. That is a fact of life. Denying it doesn’t make it go away. Not to mention that the 2nd amendment exists for the exact reason she gave… tyranny of government.
Adults can handle ‘extreme’ language. They aren’t using codes to incite riots. All, on all sides, are using visual imagery to motivate politically. If it were to motivate militarily, the language would be a lot different.
Reid lost in every county except the two where he had bosses to make employees vote. Apparently a lot of people liked what Sharon had to say.
From the list at January 10th, 2011 at 12:48 pm I’d say “Get in their faces” is the most dangerous. The rest is more like rhetoric.
Sarah has not said or done anything to make her guilty of inciting violence. She has specifically said the voting booth is where to fix things.
Indeed. Saying, “If you leave your car unlocked in this neighborhood, then it might get stolen”, is not anywhere near inciting auto theft.
Bob-1 mentions:
“Civility of discourse” became obsolete after Saul Alinsky. Now any politician that is civil towards an uncivil but effective opponent will have a good chance of losing the campaign.
Also on another note, equating outspoken opponents of leftism as accomplices to murder is a time honored Alinsky tactic. And it is potentially effective as a method of weakening the Left’s opponents, that’s why the left is using it.
Thus I repeat again that “Civility of discourse” is obsolete.
I mean, are you arguing that Palin isn’t a leader?
In the sense you mean “leader,” meaning she gets tagged for the responsibility for anything you can remotely connect to her, whether she willed it or not, whether she was assigned or chose that role or not, yeah. That’s asinine and obscene.
Your comparison to the military is inapt. Everyone who works for a given CO knows very well who’s in charge, and the CO knows them. You want to assign J. Random Crazy from Arizona to Palin’s command, just because someone — not even the crazy himself! — thinks in some strange world he could have been nudged toward his actions by a clearly abnormal and inappropriate interpretation of what she said. That’s terrorist reasoning, the kind that says if you don’t grant my demand for $100 million and a flight to Cuba, and so I kill this hostage, then YOU are responsible for the murder. You cannot hold people responsible for things because according to some fantastical chain of events, and assuming everything works out just the way you think it would, it might have worked out different.
Going back to a previous point, where did I ever argue that people are not responsible for their actions?
You have chosen not to emphasize it, as others have. That’s a statement of sorts. Do you choose not to be held responsible for what others might read into your words, or lack of them? Do you wish to be held responsible only for what you explicitly and clearly state? Maybe try extending that simple principle of justice to others, including Mrs. Palin.