Welcome to Russ McBee Sign in | Join | Help

David Neiwert on the TVUUC shooting

David Neiwert, who has written extensively about eliminationist rhetoric from the right wing against liberals, had this to say about Sunday's tragedy in Knoxville:

In reality, of course, rhetoric like this has historically played a critical role in some of the ugliest episodes in American history, as well as thousands of little acts of xenophobic brutality: functionally speaking, it gives violent -- and frequently unstable -- actors permission to act on these impulses. People like this always believe they're standing up for what "real Americans" think.

This is more complex than a simplistic cause-and-effect relationship between incitement and bloody action. Hate rhetoric (at least in this country) is agitprop for ditto-heads; more broadly, it serves as a channel for focusing social and political frustration, and the irrationality of that focus is entirely beside the point. To the murderer, the only thing that matters is that his paranoia and frustrations have an easily identifiable target with a justification handed to him by someone else. A murderer acting on hate rhetoric is still responsible for his own actions of course, but the fact that the rhetoric is given such a wide, mainstream audience lends credibility and support to the murderer's own thoughts that he would otherwise be hard-pressed to muster.

The only difference between the murderer and the celebrity who panders such filth on the radio is the willingness to pull the trigger on a crowd of innocents. The man who murdered those people on Sunday merely did what Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, and their ilk have been advocating for years.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech in this country, and although the rhetoric of right-wing hatemongers might not technically qualify as "incitement" under a legalistic, picayune definition of the word, Sunday's assailant is nevertheless the poisonous fruit of their malignant tree.

They own him.

In a karmic sense if not in a technically legalistic one, they and their supporters are accessories to the murder of innocents.

Share this post: Email | del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit
Published Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:50 PM by RussMcBee

Comments

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:23 AM by revelator

# re: David Neiwert on the TVUUC shooting

> ... the irrationality of that focus is entirely beside the point.

I was probably 15 or so when I was watching the Irish blowing each other up, and it seemed so ludicrous to me that such a homogeneous population could have such hatred for their own kind, that I went all the way with the thought and imagined this:

In a world where any person was an exact clone of every other person, save one difference - a small dot on the back of the ear which on some was green and on others was yellow - the 'yellows' sought endlessly to demonize and slaughter the 'greens', and vice versa.

Which your sentence above reminded me of exactly.  ... the irrationality of that focus is entirely beside the point.  Great sentence.

Later on you said this:  his ...frustrations have an easily identifiable target.

That's why I used green and yellow dots exactly, because they are identifiable.

However, with hate speech about 'liberals' it strikes me that 'liberal' is not really identifiable. So then one has managed to inspire hatred against an abstract conceptual category, it seems to me.  Which means that ultimately you can assign anyone to that category if you wish.

I tried explaining that to my Uncle and he didn't like it much, so maybe I'm not making as much sense as I think I am :)

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:24 PM by RussMcBee

# re: David Neiwert on the TVUUC shooting

What I meant by "identifiable" is that his general rage at the world has a specific focus, even if the members of that target group are clustered together only in his mind. Instead of being frustrated at globalization or oil prices or declining standards of living or lack of access to mental health care, none of which have easily identifiable individuals driving them, it's much simpler and more efficient to just throw up one's hands and go "It's all the liberals' fault." That's a lot less abstract, and is much easier to target through the sights of a gun.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:14 PM by revelator

# re: David Neiwert on the TVUUC shooting

That makes perfect sense to me, and I agree it is now identifiable if only in our minds.  

I guess I was musing over the mechanics of how the 'clustering together in his mind' part happens.  If I back up 25 years, I don't believe I would have coalesced that image all on my own.  Sure, academics in political science have always had strong images of this kind, but the average guy on the street?  I don't think so.  That is to say, I think the media (primarily talk radio) has played a major role in manifesting the popular contempory (negative) image of a liberal.  I'm probably just taking a round about path to stating the obvious.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:47 PM by RussMcBee

# re: David Neiwert on the TVUUC shooting

That negative image of liberalism is purely manufactured, which is the heart of the problem. Its origins lie in the Reagan-era establishment of right-wing think tanks, law schools, and media outlets whose founding goals have been predicated on the demonization of the rest of us. After a full generation of pundits, media outlets, lobbyists, writers, politicians, and policy-makers drumming into the collective consciousness that liberals are bad people, it's easy to see how some random, disaffected sicko would internalize that narrative and act upon it. It's been a long road for the purveyors of that message, but it's paid generous political dividends over the years they've been eager to claim.

However, as Sunday's violence proves, it's also paying cultural dividends they seem hypocritically unwilling to cash.

To prevent spam, anonymous comments are disabled. Click here to register for the site, or click here to sign in.