Rhetoric amounts to more than what you advocate.

The title should go without saying, but even among intelligent conservatives, sometimes it doesn't:

The fact that a homicidal maniac shares your goals doesn't make you responsible for his methods.

I never claimed otherwise.  In point of fact, I didn't say that the ideological brethren of homicidal maniacs are responsible for the actions of homicidal maniacs.  Quite the opposite.  I claimed that there exists "a non-incidental relation of particular ideologies with acts of violence," a fact no one who's ever opposed Islamic fundamentalism can deny.  I further claimed that:

conservatives do inspire those on their fringes to engage in politically motivated violence. The politics of the George Tiller murder are an indictment against conservative rhetoric because that rhetoric made Tiller a target[.]

So as to this:

Is it fair to say that I "inspired" Scott Roeder's actions if I have engaged in full-throated condemnation of partial-birth abortion (and I have)? If I accurately describe the horrific acts of violence involved in that monstrous process, does that rhetoric "make" an abortion doctor a "target"?

My question would be, "Have you, Patrick Frey, ever said anything like the following from mainstream conservative figure Rush Limbaugh?"

One of the things I strongly believe is that we are not going to, as individuals, erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it. Now, is child abuse an evil? Of course it is. Child abuse is an evil, and we confront it, and we take children away from parents who are abusive all day, do we not? Well, if child abuse is evil, as Mr. Morrissey points out here, then infanticide is even more evil.

In this comment, Patrick notes that both of us can point to cases on the right and left in which fringe figures "advocate" violence, and I'll concede that.  But openly advocating violence isn't the issue here (if only because those who do so are immediately dismissed as the cowardly cranks they undoubtedly are).  The issue is the rhetoric of violence, and I don't think anyone will deny the violence inherent in Limbaugh's rhetoric there.

The phrase "soldiers in that process," in which that "process" is stopping "infanticide," is not neutral language.  Envisioning opposition in martial terms encourages the mentally unstable to think of themselves in grandiose terms, e.g. as God's soldiers.  Is Limbaugh encouraging people to murder abortion providers?  Not directly.  (Plausible deniability is the order of the day.) Is he encouraging those people invested in the cause of stopping infanticide to imagine that they’re "soldiers" in a "process" who should "confront [evil] when [they] see it"?  Of course he is.  How do I know that?

Because that's what he said.  He may not have meant it that way, but that's what he said.  Trace the logic of his comment:

God's task is to erase evil from the world. We can be soldiers in the process of erasing evil from the world. We should confront evil in the world when we see it. Because abusing children is evil, infanticide is more evil.

What conclusion might an unstable person draw from it?

Comments

[Karl Steel]

Curious: do any right-wing belief systems advocate nonviolence? has there ever been a pacifist right wing ideology? has there ever been a right wing ideology of live and let live, you know, for people instead of capital?

[Ahistoricality]

I posted this at LGM, as well:

Patterico's response, by the way, at the (present) end of that thread (and there's no way in hell I'm going back there) is, and I quote,

The fact that some unstable person might badly misunderstand me is neither here nor there.

In other words, Scott, you're pulling your punches again. The question shouldn't be about "unstable people" because that sets up both an absurd binary and an escape route for demagogues like Frey. You're letting him argue that he's being misunderstood because the hypothetical audience is "unstable." No: the question is whether anyone who was reasonably committed to the cause would be more likely to consider violence a legitimate tool.

The evidence is not in the actions of Roeder: it's in the approval of large numbers of movement conservatives who say "I don't approve of what he did [because they don't want to own it], but I understand why he did it [and I approve, is the unspoken but well-understood conclusion]."

[Luther Blissett]

Scott, he says soldiers of God remove abused children from their abusers. So clearly he doesn't mean "soldiers" in a violent sense.

[happyfeet]

Mr. Roeder was a religious murdery type person I think not a political one.

Not a political murder. Religious. The left likes to conflate the two as much as the fundies do I think. But it's still a category error. And not being part of the problem means you keep your religion religious and your politics political.

So no more killings of the doctors or dabblings in the global warming end-times mythoi and we'll be starting the process of getting back on track I think.

We should get started on this asap.

[Sid the Anarchist Lurker]

Damn you, SEK, and your links. Reading Patrick Frey is to risk a volvulus. Grease the toboggan runners and complete the centrifugation of hate! Free kick Frey in the balls and send him head first down the Olympic luge run, but never link the man, please.

[happyfeet]

They changed the course to where he'd probably be just fine plus also the little sled thingy is a big part of the speed and friction from his clothes and stuff would probably mean he'd just slide down pretty much a lot like a normal slide I think except maybe colder.

[KWK]

I believe the U.S. legal system is onto something here, when it differentiates between speech that is "free" (even if offensive to various sensibilities) and speech that is likely to incite violence, and thus is not protected. It's why, for example, the ACLU can defend Christians who hand out literature that calls homosexuality "sin". Have homosexuals often been targeted for violence? Of course. Does the rhetoric of conservative Christianity re: homosexuality contribute to that? Sometimes yes, but not always. It may require, you know, actual thought to distinguish rhetoric that is simply offensive for whatever reason from rhetoric that actually condones or encourages violence, but there is a fairly well-established legal line between negative speech directed at a person/action/belief that is protected and speech that isn't.

While equating legal culpability with moral culpability may not be a perfect standard (Canada's certainly gotten it wrong, of late), I think it is a good way to at least get a handle on how closely fiery rhetoric is tied to the action of others. If Rush Limbaugh went over the line, then prosecute him. But if his speech is protected by the First Amendment, then he's more than likely in the clear, no matter how badly you want to tar him with moral culpability for the actions of Roeder and his ilk.

[Ahistoricality]

If Rush Limbaugh went over the line, then prosecute him. But if his speech is protected by the First Amendment, then he's more than likely in the clear, no matter how badly you want to tar him with moral culpability for the actions of Roeder and his ilk.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. "Equating legal culpability with moral culpability" is worthless in any meaningful discussion of culture, history or social change.

There is a very high bar for criminal prosecution of speech, and that's a good thing. Moreover, Limbaugh and O'Reily, as out of control as they seem to be, know pretty much exactly where that bar is. There is a lower, but still difficult to clear, bar for civil damages from speech acts which do harm -- including sexual harrassment, incitement, slander/libel -- and it's also clear that professional broadcasters and journalists (or at least their producers) will know where that bar is and stay under it (I can't decide if this is going to be a track&field metaphor or a limbo dance analogy, but I'm going to keep going anyway), sometimes by hedging (which their listeners know to ignore) or by issuing corrections (which nobody pays attention to), but more often by being too wealthy and powerful (or by working for institutions that are too wealthy and powerful) to be vulnerable to any but the most blantly obvious cases brought by institutions which have roughly equivalent wealth and power.

[tomemos]

"So no more killings of the doctors or dabblings in the global warming end-times mythoi and we'll be starting the process of getting back on track I think."

Waiiit a minute, did you think we wouldn't see the slippage there? Even (maybe especially) a scholar of rhetoric like Scott wouldn't conflate an act (killing a doctor) with mere speech ("mythoi"). What's more, I haven't seen any kind of upswing in eco-terrorism recently, even as the projections (from scientists, mind you, not talk-show hosts) have gotten more dire.

However, in the spirit of comity, I'm glad that you liked my Candyland line in the other thread.

[SEK]

The question shouldn't be about "unstable people" because that sets up both an absurd binary and an escape route for demagogues like Frey. You're letting him argue that he's being misunderstood because the hypothetical audience is "unstable." No: the question is whether anyone who was reasonably committed to the cause would be more likely to consider violence a legitimate tool.

But we haven't really seen this sort of rhetoric work on stable people yet: nationalist and national security issues compel America into unnecessary wars, certainly; and the Tea Party movement has re-convinced people to march against their interests, absolutely; but there's a ways to go before any of those people become "ordinary Germans" circa 1932.

Mr. Roeder was a religious murdery type person I think not a political one.

One who admitted, in open court, that listening to Bill O'Reilly (among others) compelled him to murder Tiller. The intertwining of religion and politics is pernicious, I agree, but in this case, it's the intertwining or religion and conservative politics that's at issue.

So no more killings of the doctors or dabblings in the global warming end-times mythoi and we'll be starting the process of getting back on track I think.

Tomemos nails it, but let me add: there's a difference between murder and the scientific method, if only because the orderly procession of the latter has little to no bearing on the former.

But if his speech is protected by the First Amendment, then he's more than likely in the clear, no matter how badly you want to tar him with moral culpability for the actions of Roeder and his ilk.

That's a really, really poor standard, Kyler. We should absolutely be able to condemn people for actions that aren't legally actionable; for example, people who cut in line are bad people who deserve condemnation, but they're not breaking any laws.

[Ahistoricality]

But we haven't really seen this sort of rhetoric work on stable people yet

I'm going to submit that Eric Rudolph's supporters may well fit the "ordinary Germans" model, as well as Roeder's, but I'm not sure that I buy whatever standard it is that you're reaching for with that phrase. I feel a little like you're working up to a tautology: only unstable people would commit violent acts, not normal ones, so if someone is committing a violent act, they must be unstable.

[Karl Steel]

Agreed on the tautology in re: 'stable people'

The intertwining of religion and politics is pernicious
I don't agree. MLK jr and Liberation Theology, e.g., have good politics intertwined inextricably with religion. The problem isn't religion. It's the foundationally violent character of right wing politics.

[KWK]

Really, Ahistoricality? Someone who cuts off his own hand in support of his fugitive brother fits the "ordinary German" model? People the ADL call "extremists" fit that model? The publishers of Army of God ("a how-to book on abortion clinic violence") fit that model? Those are the people used as actual examples in the articles you cite. If you think that's what passes for reasonable behavior among conservatives, then you need to get out more.

SEK, I really think the salient issue here actually is the distinction between "unstable" and "reasonable" people, and that is why I think the legal standard is informative. If a "reasonable" person would take Rush Limbaugh's words as a call to violence (even a veiled one), then you're onto something. If a "reasonable" person is sophisticated enough to recognize that martial imagery on the part of a demagogue does not ineluctably lead to martial activity on the part of the masses, then by all means refute Limbaugh as wrong-headed on the issues, but don't condemn him as promulgating evil (at least, not in this case). The other option is to condemn, right alongside Limbaugh, the 19th Century slaves seeking freedom or the later Civil Rights marchers for the violence implicit in the martial imagery of their hymns and spirituals. Obviously, I don't think that's a valid way to go. Unless you want to argue that, in those cases, violence was in fact justified...

So, then, how do we know "reasonable" when we see it, so this claim doesn't just reduce to a tautology? Some serial killers (BTK comes to mind) seemed perfectly well-adjusted and integrated into society in all other respects. So while the standard's not perfect, I would tend to say that if someone is reasonable in most/all other aspects of their life, that's a good person to use as a gauge as to the intended effect of the martial rhetoric. As I already said, lopping off one's hand would, in my book, tend to be a disqualifying factor for that sort of test.

[tomemos]

Someone who cuts off his own hand in support of his fugitive brother fits the "ordinary German" model? . . . Those are the people used as actual examples in the articles you cite.

It's pretty shoddy of you to pretend you just didn't read this: "Two country music songs were written about him and a locally top-selling T-shirt read: 'Run Rudolph Run.'" Fringe lunatics don't make much of a market for country music and t-shirts. Less disingenuousness, please.

[KWK]

Tomemos,

Fair enough. One question I still have, though: were his supporters actually condoning his violent actions, or did they think he was being unfairly scapegoated by The Man? I lived in Milwaukee during the Run, Bambi, Run days, and to the extent that my 14-year-old self was capable of rhetorical analysis, I recall the vast majority of the public outcry (and yes, the T-shirts and songs as well) at the time revolved around the latter arguments, not the former.

[tomemos]

KWK,

Well, that's certainly possible, but would it change the "good Germans" characterization? After all, the archetypal good German isn't a member of the SS, and probably doesn't want to be troubled with the grisly details of how exactly political dissidents and undesirables are being dealt with. But he does know that The Powers That Be—which include Jewish bankers, communists, and degenerates, in his mind—have pushed ordinary people around for too long. He knows, as Vonnegut put it in "Mother Night,"

This once-proud country of ours is falling into the hands of the wrong people. . . . And, before it gets back on the right track . . . some heads are going to roll.

[KWK]

If there is evidence that the T-shirt wearers, like the "good Germans", didn't care whether or not Rudolph was guilty, then I think your point stands. Otherwise, I think the motives for supporting Rudolph make all the difference in the world. The issue at hand is to what extent martial rhetoric is ultimately responsible for violent behavior. Granted we're only working with anecdotes here and not actual data, but if the general populace (as evidenced by country songs and what have you) is not even marginally convinced by fiery rhetoric to engage in, support, or even condone violent behavior, but are in fact colluding with an allegedly violent fugitive for reasons that would make Glenn Greenwald proud, then I would argue that the link that SEK is trying to make between demagogues like Limbaugh and murderers like Roeder is invalid. There are certainly cases where links between rhetoric and violence are intended or even irresponsibly engendered, but in the general case of the rhetoric surrounding abortion and the particular words that SEK cites, I don't see the red flags ("Stop him at all costs!") that he's claiming are there.

That said, I think the mainstream opponents of abortion (much like non-fundamentalist Muslims) do have a responsibility to speak out when someone on the fringe of their movement violently hijacks their cause. From what I saw at the time, there was a lot of denouncing of Roeder from the Right, but I would have been happier with a lot more.

[Ahistoricality]

colluding with an allegedly violent fugitive for reasons that would make Glenn Greenwald proud

I love the way people who argue in bad faith use hypotheticals to shift the goalposts, and try to implicate others in their bad faith. The next logical question, of course is "What motives, pray tell, do you think Greenwald would consider legitimate ones for aiding and abetting an alleged terrorist and mass murderer?" But it's a calumny: Greenwald, as long as I've been reading him (actually, I gave up ages ago, except when following links from others), is a proceduralist, not someone who argues that the law can be circumvented by individual judgement.

[KWK]

If you'll read what I wrote a bit more carefully, you'll see that I claim that their reasons would make Glenn Greenwald proud; I did not intend to convey that Greenwald actually gets off on aiding and abetting terrorists and mass murderers. He's been on even more of a "don't trust the government" kick than usual lately, which I have a great deal of respect for and toward which I was trying to draw attention. I was hypothesizing that this coincided with the motives of Rudolph's supporters, despite their enormous difference in overall political ideology. And that is the sole point that I was making with the Greenwald reference.
Comparing their reasons while differentiating those reasons from the resulting actions was something I fully intended in my previous post. Was that really too subtle, or had it just been too long since you vomited your last ad hominem towards an interlocutor?

[Ahistoricality]

I did not intend to convey that Greenwald actually gets off on aiding and abetting terrorists and mass murderers.

You claimed that he would respect their reasons: this implies that he would consider them legitimate, that he would approve.

Was that really too subtle, or had it just been too long since you vomited your last ad hominem towards an interlocutor?

When people are making distinctions without differences and engaging in highly speculative distractions to justify abhorent behavior, I get a little nauseous, yes.