While the events of Tuscan have been the dominate national news story they have also triggered the all-too-familiar dueling narratives of capitalizing on tragedy for political ends and hand-wringing about the politicization of tragedy. These competing stories, often promoted by the same news and entertainment figures serve an invaluable purpose in the promotion of a political agenda. With the mainstream media setting and enforcing the standard of judgment on these matters, propagandists are to spread their lies while marginalizing anyone who calls them on it. This dynamic has been developing for decades.
While most people would agree that it is highly unethical and shameless to politicize these type of tragedies, what is the appropriate course of action when one side inevitably does co-opt a national tragedy toward political ends? While those doing the politicizing would have us believe that pointing out their efforts perpetuates the problem, this is simply convenience masquerading "sensitivity".
I would argue that there is an obligation to call out this shameless capitalizing on tragedy for the destructive and, ultimately, insulting action it is. Emotionally manipulative, these actions are nothing short of an assault on honest discourse, the political process and the efforts of a free society to govern itself. To sit back and let these opportunistic smears go unchallenged it to encourage these actions.
In that spirit, I have decided to highlight an unfortunate pattern on the left of politicizing tragedy. I want to make clear that what I am talking about here is not the type of politicizing that goes on during the typical campaign season by individuals seeking office. This is something that goes well beyond that.
To start with, let's look at the recent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. All the hand wringing concerning violent rhetoric focusing primarily on Palin and maps with cross-hairs on them ignores the fact that cross hairs, talk of "targeting" and other violent, "warfare"-like rhetoric is common for political discourse, on both sides of the isle and in the media. This selective examination is serves to undermine honest analysis of not only the shooter's motivations, but of the positions of the political "opposition".
This type "analysis" which fosters the appearance of non-leftist thought as irrational, reactionary and prone to emotional, violent outbursts can be attributed to group think and a severe lack of interest and/or understanding of non-leftist thought inside certain institutions like the entertainment industry, mass media and political elite. But that doesn't, by itself, explain things. As a quote from a Democrat political strategist in this article from Politico shows, there is a purposeful effort to falsely brand the right in this:
Of course, there are countless other examples as well, including the Paul Wellstone Memorial/Campaign Rally. This pattern can even be traced back to early reactions to the JFK assassination:
This all serves to reinforce the leftist misconceptions about the right that serve as elaborate justifications to dismiss non-leftist thought. These include the narrative of conservatives as racists (as embodied in the "Southern Strategy" idea and demonstrated in the recent debates about the Ground Zero Mosque and the Arizona Immigration Law) as well as the notion of conservative constituents as easily manipulated, emotional/religious fools who cling to their guns and bibles.
Fortunately, the mainstream media doesn't have a monopoly allowing them to control and filter the dissemination of information, though they still try to function as they do. The new media and, more importantly, the internet allow for an overabundance of information from which can be draw information which gives lie to these shameless attempts to dishonestly turn national tragedy into political victory.
While most people would agree that it is highly unethical and shameless to politicize these type of tragedies, what is the appropriate course of action when one side inevitably does co-opt a national tragedy toward political ends? While those doing the politicizing would have us believe that pointing out their efforts perpetuates the problem, this is simply convenience masquerading "sensitivity".
I would argue that there is an obligation to call out this shameless capitalizing on tragedy for the destructive and, ultimately, insulting action it is. Emotionally manipulative, these actions are nothing short of an assault on honest discourse, the political process and the efforts of a free society to govern itself. To sit back and let these opportunistic smears go unchallenged it to encourage these actions.
In that spirit, I have decided to highlight an unfortunate pattern on the left of politicizing tragedy. I want to make clear that what I am talking about here is not the type of politicizing that goes on during the typical campaign season by individuals seeking office. This is something that goes well beyond that.
To start with, let's look at the recent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. All the hand wringing concerning violent rhetoric focusing primarily on Palin and maps with cross-hairs on them ignores the fact that cross hairs, talk of "targeting" and other violent, "warfare"-like rhetoric is common for political discourse, on both sides of the isle and in the media. This selective examination is serves to undermine honest analysis of not only the shooter's motivations, but of the positions of the political "opposition".
This type "analysis" which fosters the appearance of non-leftist thought as irrational, reactionary and prone to emotional, violent outbursts can be attributed to group think and a severe lack of interest and/or understanding of non-leftist thought inside certain institutions like the entertainment industry, mass media and political elite. But that doesn't, by itself, explain things. As a quote from a Democrat political strategist in this article from Politico shows, there is a purposeful effort to falsely brand the right in this:
“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
The Oklahoma City narrative is not only another example of capitalizing on tragedy, but the set the template for spinning tragedy which has become standard ever since. Clinton was at a low point in his Presidency after the electoral beating he had just received in the 1994 mid-term elections. Shortly after the unfortunate events in Oklahoma city, political adviser Dick Morris, after poling on the tragedy suggested a strategy that Clinton implemented which aimed to brand and marginalize Republicans as "extremists":Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists."
Clinton's proposals -- for example, new limits on firearms and some explosives that were opposed by the National Rifle Association -- had "an underlying political purpose," Morris wrote in 2004 in another book about Clinton, Because He Could. That purpose was "to lead voters to identify the Oklahoma City bombing with the right wing. By making proposals we knew the Republicans would reject…we could label them as soft on terror an imply a connection with the extremism of the fanatics who bombed the Murrah Federal Building."
Clinton's proposals -- for example, new limits on firearms and some explosives that were opposed by the National Rifle Association -- had "an underlying political purpose," Morris wrote in 2004 in another book about Clinton, Because He Could. That purpose was "to lead voters to identify the Oklahoma City bombing with the right wing. By making proposals we knew the Republicans would reject…we could label them as soft on terror an imply a connection with the extremism of the fanatics who bombed the Murrah Federal Building."
Of course, there are countless other examples as well, including the Paul Wellstone Memorial/Campaign Rally. This pattern can even be traced back to early reactions to the JFK assassination:
...when the word spread on November 22 that President Kennedy had been shot, the immediate and understandable reaction was that the assassin must be a right-wing extremist—an anti-Communist, perhaps, or a white supremacist. Such speculation went out immediately over the national airwaves, and it seemed to make perfect sense, echoed by the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith and Chief Justice Earl Warren, who said that Kennedy had been martyred “as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”
It therefore came as a shock when the police announced later the same day that a Communist had been arrested for the murder, and when the television networks began to run tapes taken a few months earlier showing the suspected assassin passing out leaflets in New Orleans in support of Fidel Castro. Nor was Lee Harvey Oswald just any leftist, playing games with radical ideas in order to shock friends and relatives. Instead, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Communist who had defected to the Soviet Union and married a Russian woman before returning to the U.S. the previous year. One of the first of an evolving breed, Oswald had lately rejected the Soviet Union in favor of third-world dictators like Mao, Ho, and Castro.
This type of cognitive dissonance - an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously - is typical of knee-jerk leftist reactions to national tragedies in the media, academia, entertainment industries and elitist circles. They try to jump out ahead of the issue to spin it to their advantage and, when the facts conflict with the narrative they are promoting, quickly turn to condemning those who politicize it. When the mainstream media is the judge on who is and is not politicizing the issue, it is easy to quickly label the political right (who inevitably react by pointing out the flaws in the leftist narrative) as politicizing the issue.It therefore came as a shock when the police announced later the same day that a Communist had been arrested for the murder, and when the television networks began to run tapes taken a few months earlier showing the suspected assassin passing out leaflets in New Orleans in support of Fidel Castro. Nor was Lee Harvey Oswald just any leftist, playing games with radical ideas in order to shock friends and relatives. Instead, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Communist who had defected to the Soviet Union and married a Russian woman before returning to the U.S. the previous year. One of the first of an evolving breed, Oswald had lately rejected the Soviet Union in favor of third-world dictators like Mao, Ho, and Castro.
This all serves to reinforce the leftist misconceptions about the right that serve as elaborate justifications to dismiss non-leftist thought. These include the narrative of conservatives as racists (as embodied in the "Southern Strategy" idea and demonstrated in the recent debates about the Ground Zero Mosque and the Arizona Immigration Law) as well as the notion of conservative constituents as easily manipulated, emotional/religious fools who cling to their guns and bibles.
Fortunately, the mainstream media doesn't have a monopoly allowing them to control and filter the dissemination of information, though they still try to function as they do. The new media and, more importantly, the internet allow for an overabundance of information from which can be draw information which gives lie to these shameless attempts to dishonestly turn national tragedy into political victory.
