The Left has been disparate to demonize conservative as violent and angry, ignoring violence and riots on the Left and blaming any incident of violence or terrorism on the Right. The most recent example of this can be found in the case of John Patrick Bedell, an obviously insane person who was killed whire shooting up the Pentagon. Despite the fact that he was a registered Democrat, was vehemently anti-Bush, and was critical of capitalism, the media worked to classify his as a right-wing extremist. The same tactic was taken when Andrew Joseph Stack flew a plan into an IRS building in Texas — despite his rantings against capitalism and organized religion, and in support of socialized medicine, the media again labeled him a right-wing extremist. This meme is well in line with the political narrative that people on the Right are somehow more unstable and prone to violence than those on the left.
Following the last attack, some conservative pundits, such as Michelle Malkin and Zombie, have pointed out that in the case of Bedell, and probably of Stack, insanity was the issue, and not politics, and it did conservative no good to play the political blame game.
John Points out two major patterns regarding political violence: 1) Violence against the Right at the hands of the Left is commonplace, and 2) The media downplay violence at the hands of the Left, and quickly assign blame for violence on the Right, even when that violence is committed by the Left.
[T]hese are the patterns that exist. Liberals commit violence with regularity. The press ignores, downplays or outright lies about it as a matter of course.
The blame game is already being played and those of us on the right are perpetually the ones being blamed, even when the evidence strongly points in the other direction (Joe Stack and John Bedell).
Taking the high road is an honorable approach. Unfortunately, the NY Times is not honorable. If every one of these charges is not strongly rebutted, the big lie will set in. I believe we have a responsibility to set the record straight. And if that means turning the blame back where it belongs or pointing out the pattern of violence on the left, then so be it.
I guess it comes down to this. The “blame game” isn’t a game. The charge of right-wing extremism (much of it driven by the SPLC) has been one of the chief tools used by Democrats against their conservative opponents since Obama took office. Refusing to play out of principle is choosing not to fight a public relations battle which conservatives can’t afford to lose.
John makes a compelling case, and I although crazy is crazy, I think that there may be something to associating violence to particular political mindsets. Violence is largely a tool of the Left. Right-wing extremists tend to be separatists, and Left-wing extremists tend to be revolutionaries. The Tea Party movement, which is depicted by the media as violent and dangerous, more typically understands its objectives as a “restoration” to constitutional ideals, rather than a “revolution.” Yet the phrase “Stop bitching, start a revolution” appear on t-shirts and bumper stickers popular with the Left. Tea Party protests are always orderly and non-violent, whereas Left-wing protests often dissolve into riots. Can any Tea Party compare to the violence that routinely accompanies the G-4 or G-8 conferences, or even the Democratic National Convention?