Who's Right, and What's Left?

I recently requested that reasonable Conservatives and Republicans speak up condemning violent rhetoric and actions. I didn't claim that such actions represented the majority of the party. Responses, however, suggested that "the Dems" were a monobloc of hypocrisy. Interesting.

Here's a place where a charge of hypocrisy against me, personally, would have some traction: I didn't condemn a Canadian film about the assassination of Bush. I promise that I would have if I'd had the slightest belief that there was actual elevated risk. Perhaps I should have thought that, but most violence in my lifetime has been against the forces of change, or Democrat/Left (Kennedy, Kennedy, Malcolm, King) as opposed to a couple of failed attempt against forces of Conservatism (Reagan, Wallace). Whether that is legitimate or not, that's the way I thought about it.

In Obama's case, I believe that there was a seriously elevated threat level. It would simply make no sense for that not to be true, and would in fact violate everything I believe about human nature. NEWSWEEK and other organs reported that to be true. The book by Ronald Kessler reported a 400% rise, and comments by the head of the secret service are fascinatingly unclear, saying things like "the threats are not up" as opposed to "over the period between the election and this date, there is no increase, on average, as opposed to the same period for Bush and Clinton." Are not up when, today? This morning? Sounds like weaseling to me, from a governmental organ notoriously close-mouthed.

Note that the estimation of increased threats does not suggest that Republicans, Conservatives, or Whites are more violent than other people. Just that major change of that kind (election of a black President) is so much of a shake-up it is logical for it to produce increased fear and discomfort. (What? High percentages of Republicans think he is a Socialist? A Kenyan? Hates white people? And I'm supposed to believe that there is no elevated threat?) So I stand by that one--it would simply make no sense, unless Conservatives are literally BETTER than ordinary human beings.

So if a Canadian film had been made about Obama's assassination, I would have had a much stronger reaction. I would have considered it an actual invitation to violence, rather than, say, a tasteless controversy. If I had had the slightest reason to believe Bush was in the crosshairs, I would have been ALMOST as alarmed.

Now...I'm not proud of the fact that I wouldn't have been AS alarmed, but I'm honest enough to admit it's true. If Bush had been the first White president, I'm pretty sure I would have been just as concerned about his symbolic value, and despite the fact that I'm not White, my reaction would have been pretty close. I do see Obama as a change so massive that damned few Whites seem to have any idea at all how important it is...but then again, I've met almost no Whites who really notice the wide range of roles Blacks can't play in movies or television without alienating the White audience.

Nothing, absolutely nothing I've ever said implies that Whites are more ANYTHING--good or bad--than blacks. But they are in the position that allows them to be oblivious. As are men, heterosexuals, the wealthy, and Christians. When you are the "norm" you don't have to notice the effect your attitudes have on others.

So back to my reaction to the "Death of a President" movie. I drove to Pasadena, was grimly amused, and thought it interesting. Not particularly good, but interesting. If you want to think I was ignoring threat levels against Bush, I understand. But if those assassinations had been "Nixon, Reagan, Wallace, Maddox" or something, my attitude would have been "Liberals/Democrats actually do kill Conservatives/Republicans. This is horrible, and cannot be allowed. It shouldn't be shown in the U.S."

I'm not saying my reaction was legitimate or evolved. Just that that was my internal process.

##

But all of you are missing my real point: I'm not "outraged" at the rhetoric. I'm concerned that if it spirals into actual violence, it will damage the Conservative cause. If there is a pattern, supported by countless comments from Right-wing pundits, with minimal condemnation by spokesmen on the Right...as opposed to what looks like actual "whipping up the base"--it would prove devastating, shutting down honorable opposition for...well, depending on the level of catastrophy, months at least. And I don't want that to happen. If you react as if I'm saying

1) All Republicans are violent.

2) All opposition to Obama's policies are racist

You're missing the point. Yep, I've heard Leftists suggest both of these things, and considered it the same overheated, dishonest rhetoric that disgusts me about politics in general. The trouble is when someone either excuses that behavior on their side (because the other side does it) or takes the position that their side DOESN'T do it. "That" behavior is all "them." And anyone who takes the position that "their" side are better, more moral people falls right into that abyss, as far as I'm concerned.

Right now, at this moment, I think Conservatives are wrong about the impact of Nationalized or Universal health care. My reasons make sense to me, but I know I could be wrong. But I don't that is true about all issues, through my adult life. The thought is that the pendulum of correct/incorrect swings back and forth--when and if such a thing can actually be sussed out at all. Because I accept the WHO stats on lifespan, infant mortality rate and cost per capita/percentage of GNP doesn't mean that those are the only ways to look at it. I know my acceptance of them is independent of my other political attitudes, and I know that because I was willing to accept the first two (lifespan and infant mortality) as evidence that Apartheid had some positive effects. And trust me, that was a hard one. But it doesn't make me right, and there are legitimate and intelligent arguments, many of which have been made on this blog.

But I don't think, nor have I ever said, that Conservatives are any lesser--or better than Liberals in overall. I think they have different strengths and weaknesses, useful in different ways at different times. Can those of you attacking my words claim to believe the same? If not, my position is simple: your perceptual filters kept you from seeing my actual point, and I suggest that those same filters have served you poorly in other arenas.