Way back in the Dark Ages of 2006, I wrote an op-ed for an online site called "Gather" about the increasingly negative rhetoric from the Republican party in that election, called the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity." In it, I noted that the GOP and their allies were ratcheting up the rhetoric of divisiveness for that election, the basic gist of which was summed up ably by a New York Times editorial on President Bush's rhetorical tactics:
Since he can't defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies....
...In Mr. Bush's world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don't. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don't support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.
Me:
The danger in this rhetoric is that it leads to extremism. As the fantasy-world is challenged by reality, by a devolving situation in Iraq, by an increasingly despised President, and by the poor forecasts for the upcoming election, the unhinged fringe reacts to the suspect agents of change with vitriol and violence.
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - The man accused of shooting dead two people and wounding seven others at a church apparently selected the congregation because of its liberal social stance, the city's police chief said Monday.
Now I'm not arguing that there's a concerted and organized movement among righties to initiate a campaign of terror against the left. But what I am saying is that we ought to measure a pundit's or politician's character based on the use of this kind of rhetoric. It's not funny, and it has real consequences.
