http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman

 Quote:
CLIMATE OF HATE
By Paul Krugman
January 9, 2011


When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.
The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent.

A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.

It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized [ \:lol\: The Democrat in West Virginia who ran a commercial in 2010 about "setting [his] sights on Cap and Trade" (packing hunting rifle in commercial?) --WB] ; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post
[ Gee, I remember a lot of pundits from the W. Bush years forward wishing Republicans were dead, just for their political views. And Nena Totenberg of NPR hoping that Dick Cheney and/or members of his family would die of AIDS for not wanting more money for AIDS research. Or that actress at the White House Press Dinner wishing Rush Limbaugh would die of colon cancer. Or... --WB].
Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will. [ I watch both regularly and have never heard that done, except when each is twisted out of context. --WB]

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger. [Uhhh... William Ayers, Jeff Jones, Squeaky Fromme, Hinckley, several attempts in the Bush years... damn Krugman's got a short --and selective-- memory. --WB]

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people. [Unless of course it's vitriolic hate from the Left. In which case... hey, it's just free speech! Even if it's movies, plays, and comic books portraying the assassination of George W. Bush, claiming he's a war criminal and a babykiller, and that he orchestrated the 9-11 terrorism. Because he's an idiot. AND an evil genius! Or less elaborately, just wishing W. and Cheney were dead. Not just grassroots crazies, but mainstream beltway reporters. --WB]

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.” [One guy. And the notion is absurd. No one else in the GOP or Fox News believes this. --WB]

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before? [Before you try to remove the splinter from Republican eyes, Mr Krugman, first remove the plank from your own eye. It is Republicans, not Democrats, who cannot appear at a bookstore or university speaking appearance without being threatened or shouted off the stage. --WB]

If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
[Would that Krugman believed his condescending advice applied to him and his liberal brethren as well. --WB]

____________________________

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 10, 2011, on page A21 of the New York edition.




Paul Krugman is as disconnected from reality as Jared Loughner.


As several have pointed out, Krugman wrote this column about 2 hours after Giffords and the others were shot, way before any of the facts were known. And the knwn facts don't support what he says about this being inspired by "toxic rhetoric coming from the right".


But you don't hear Krugman, Joe Klein, Michael Moore, or any other angry voices from the Left setting the record straight, now that the facts are known of Loughner's dimentia and Leftist leanings now, do you?

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.