The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Why It Will Be Hard to Have National Dialogue About Political Tone

By on 1.12.11 @ 11:04AM

A number of commentators have argued that even though there’s no evidence that Jared Loughner’s actions had anything to do with political rhetoric, it’s still worthwhile to have a national conversation about changing the tone of political debate. Many conservatives have pushed back, arguing that such a debate can only happen after a period of time has passed. But that’s only partly right. I think there may have been an opportunity for such a debate in the wake of the Tucson shooting, but the left has likely made that impossible. By rushing to politicize the tragedy before any evidence was in, liberals immediately poisoned the political well, and so now whenever a liberal talks in terms of moving away from “violent political rhetoric,” “changing the tone” or “ending the climate of hate” it’s perceived as a euphemism for attacking Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Tea Party and conservative talk radio. Had liberals held their judgment in the wake of the shooting, and only after facts were in, said, “Clearly political rhetoric isn’t to blame for this, but now is a good time anyway to have a national conversation about tone…” it would have been a different story. But when you unleash a furious assault on conservatives right out of the gate, it’s hard to change course and expect to have a civil conversation about political tone.

View all comments (42) |

George S| 1.12.11 @ 11:22AM

From the Liberal Dictionary:

Dia' logue.\n.\: Lecture

Wil| 1.12.11 @ 5:27PM

The hypocrisy of the Left is truly staggering. They have loudly and repeatedly called for the murder of President Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glen Beck for years. And I don't mean they hint at it or use metaphors or code words. I mean they have clearly, publicly, angrily and repeatedly called for flat-out murder. And now we are supposed to seriously listen to them accuse the other side of heated rhetoric? What a jaw dropping joke.

Per Saul Alinsky's teachings, one of the keystones of modern liberalism is the intentional daily use of lies, both subtle and gross, as one of their main tools. The liberal media outnumbers the conservative media 100 to 1, and both sides are well aware of this. The liberal media has been over-run with Alinsky-esque rabid zealots who knowingly lie as easily and often as a lapdog barks. They could care less if their network, newspaper or magazine loses all credibility, or even if they cause it to go bankrupt. It is not a business to them, so much as a convenient vehicle to broadcast each day's package of liberal lies and distortions.

A second factor lies in how a liberal's mind works. Their minds are a jumble of disconnected facts, all floating in a turbid sea of emotion. All new facts or information are first filtered to determine if they meet the liberal's existing world view. If the new information does not, it is immediately discarded and forgotten, as if the liberal had never even seen or heard of it. And if any information conflicts, then strong emotion immediately steps in and trumps all facts and logic.

Another prominent feature of the liberal mind is projection. For reasons I can not figure out, liberals have a very strong tendency to call others a liar if they themselves are lying. They call others violent if they themselves are violent. They call others racist if they themselves are racist (usually against whites). And so on. This projection of their own feelings and intentions onto others makes it very easy to see what they are currently thinking, and how they currently view themselves.

Needless to say, all of this extreme hypocrisy, intentional and relentless dishonesty, irrationality, and projection make it virtually impossible to discuss anything with a liberal, or to even expose them to many aspects of reality.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:38PM

I agree--that's why I ridicule them constantly. I won't play their asinine head-game.

Steve Cotton| 1.12.11 @ 6:03PM

False. The only reason we need a "conversation about tone" is the fact that they smeared Sarah Palin. Had they waited, no conversation needed. It would have come about that no one but the crazy is responsible. Rightwinger rhetoric like mine would not need a tone conversation.

Having a tone conversation now is akin to saying, "well, we really have hateful speech and, while it didn't cause murder this time, it sure could in the future!"

This smear just keeps smearing.

And besides, when a liberal discussed changing the tone, they have lost the argument and resort to "you have a hateful tone so shut the hell up" mode.

marin j smith| 1.12.11 @ 12:05PM

Mr Klein your last sentence is right on the money and I believe symptomatic of a larger picture. An effort to shut free speech. It is part of a propaganda war. Many Republicans and Conservatives foolishly ignore this. But I do not. Thus as such there is no diologue but monologue consisting of hectoring,lecturing and name calling. The Left must be called on this. Sadly--but truthfully it must be done--but civily of course-even if they are not.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.12.11 @ 12:06PM

I don't agree. Why change the tone?

If the public is the final arbiter of products, and political discourse is just another product, the public will figure out who is right and who is wrong.

Proof of that can be found in declining readership at the New York Times, and minimal audiences for shows like Olbermann and Chris Matthews, two professional blowhards.

The markets are already rejecting the left and any further discourse will be ignored by those who need it the most.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.12.11 @ 12:54PM

PLEASE... look at transcripts of political discourse between our founding fathers and the first handful of elections. The political "tone" has nothing but improved over the years. The opposite of truth is what the lib's are selling, typical. Don't buy it.

There's some great videos where somebody took the quotes and made them into a "modern" campaign ad. Search them out or here's one link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lvTqpygxk

Thomas| 1.12.11 @ 1:00PM

This is simply the hypocrisy of a losing group/movement attempting to change the rules that THEY established and used for the last 14 years. It was not only permissible, but good tactics, to lie, mis-characterize and defame your political opponents when it seemed to be working for the liberals and Democrats. When simple truth, as used by their opponents on the right, proved disastrous for the Dems, suddenly the tenor of political speech has to be suppressed. No dialog is necessary on this subject. The people have already made their choice.

Liberal Reader| 1.12.11 @ 1:09PM

There could have been a debate. But the left has made that impossible.

Come on, Klein. That's ridiculous.

Maybe the first step towards improving the national discourse would be to drop the idea of there being a single "left" and a single "right."

You conflate every person with liberal leanings into a single category. That's not fair and it's not accurate and it doesn't help anything.

I think the national debate about political discourse ought to be kept as far away from our responses to the AZ shootings as possible.

It's completely impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the "tone" of political discourse in the shadow of this shooting.

Another thing --

The internet and cable television are NOT very good indicators of what actual people on the left and on the right are thinking. As media, websites and talk shows encourage extremism and purism.

And I'll say it again:

The problem with political talk today is not that it's too angry. The problem is that it is too dumb, too devoid of fact, too irrational. You cannot "tweet" a rational argument; you cannot carry out logical arguments about domestic economic policy via facebook. Full stop.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 1:59PM

"Political talk" is dumb and vicious these days; Leftists wouldn't have it any other way.

You Libtards are just furious because Conservatives have finally brought a gun to your gun fight. Get used to it.

Jaimo| 1.12.11 @ 6:18PM

If these loud-mouthed liberals that have spent the better part of 5 days now blaming conservatives for the shooting and all liberals aren't the same, so you say, where were the voices from the left who did not agree with what was happening. Hello, is anyone out there? The same argument can be said about the good muslims and the bad muslims, the good muslims say nothing when a bad muslim does something and 'ta da' people start painting all muslims with a broad brush. To me all liberals are exactly identical, because they are and they have never gone out of their way to prove otherwise.

tatosian| 1.12.11 @ 2:30PM

Given that the left and it's media and political elites blamed the murderers actions on the Conservative right , it's a little late for our national discourse to be separated from the Tucson murders wouldn't you say?
If it's impossible to have a discussion regarding our heated political discourse in the shadow of the shooting, well, whose fault is that? Ours or the non conflated left?

(In fact it's almost always impossible to have an intelligent conversation with self proclaimed members of the left because they don't discuss issues so much as harangue, hector and accuse any who dare disagree with their ,um, views.)

As to political arguments being "too dumb, too devoid of fact, too irrational", see the left's response to the Tucson murders.

By the way, any apologies or regrets you folks on the non conflated left might want to issue for accusing us of murder? Any regrets or anything?

Didn't think so.

alex| 1.12.11 @ 3:11PM

Thank you for your sensible words. I happen to sometimes be on the conservative side and sometimes lean left. To read a post that lumps me in with ALL leftists is annoying as hell.
Talk shows? They're businesses. In order to make money, they have to attract attention to get the most listeners/viewers. Not a revalation.
IMO, the sheriff in Tucson shouldn't have made his statement, and it's ridiculous to think statements made by right wing personalities goaded the killer.
Blog sites are rife with emotion and many times lean on facts. Remember the old children's game, telephone or gossip?
It's interesting to me that in all of this, many of the posters accuse the left of tactics that are used by themselves all the time. Conservatives always get their facts straight? Never lie? Never use name calling? And now Philip Klien essentially says it's too late to have a civil debate. It reminds me of bickering kids on the playground.
If the left is open to a debate, regardless of what they've done, the right should be mature enough to open up as well.
There will always be disagreement among people and it's human nature to voice it, but we can be open minded and nice about it.

caitlin| 1.12.11 @ 3:22PM

I was thinking the same thing. I posted a message earlier about another topic, but essentially said I wish that comments would be more objective. I read other websites and the blame lies on both sides. It's actually funny to read liberals and conservatives both accusing each other of the same behavior. Doesn't anyone else see this?
So to me it's a shame that Mr. Klien would have the same kind of, using your word, immature attitude about something that could be a positive force for all of us.
Also, did you mean "lean" on facts as they use them or they don't have much?

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 3:25PM

Name a lie you've read from the Right. I've read countless lies from the Left. But, what's new?

alex| 1.12.11 @ 3:44PM

Check out politifact.com and factcheck.com
There are also many liberal websites, but they will be biased.
C'mon, guy, nobody's perfect. I'm not holding it against anyone, just pointing it out.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 3:50PM

Don't pass the buck, give me one example. Weak.

There's no equivalency between the Right and the Left because the Left has a political agenda and has to lie to get it enacted. We're just playing hardball too for the first time and you whiners don't like it. Tough!

alex| 1.12.11 @ 4:27PM

I'm not passing the buck. John Boehner was wrong when he said federal workers make so much more money than nonfeds. And I don't have time to look up everything and copy it here.
Why won't you just do some reading yourself.
All politicians lie.
And what do you mean WE don't like it? I voted Republican in the last 3 elections.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:32PM

Baloney, Concern Troll. You're just another troll stirring up trouble. BTW Boehner is right about Fed Union workers make more than non-Feds. I've read the study proving it.

Nice try though.

Sue| 1.12.11 @ 5:39PM

Okay, want the facts about federal pay? Here are some from the website that YOU mentioned. Maybe you will believe this because you are wrong, the average Fed worker does make quite a bit more. Not double, but quite a bit more.
From FactCheck.org:
These statements are supported by an Aug. 10, 2010, analysis published by the libertarian Cato Institute and an Aug. 10, 2010, story in USA Today. Both based their reports on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. But they exaggerate the pay gap between private and federal workers. Listening to Senator-elect Paul and Speaker-in-waiting Boehner, one might be led to think that the average federal employee earns an annual salary of $120,000. But the figure — which Cato and USA Today gave as $123,049 — is for total compensation, including the cost of health insurance, pensions, and other benefits.

These reports say the average salary for civilian federal employees was $81,258 in 2009 — about 61 percent higher than the $50,462 paid to the average private sector worker, but not double. The reports also say that the federal government paid $41,791 in benefits for every federal civilian worker — far more than the $10,589 spent on benefits for the average private-sector worker, although as we will show later that figure is inflated. (These numbers were arrived at by dividing full-time equivalent employees for private industries (line 3) and federal government (line 89, civilian) by their total compensation or their total wage and salary. The statistics on federal employees exclude the military as well as postal workers.)

Jaimo| 1.12.11 @ 6:21PM

Aren't politifact.com and factcheck.com left-wing "truth" seeker websites funded by Moveon.org and George Soros?

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 7:12PM

Yes.

Liberal Reader| 1.12.11 @ 4:33PM

Patriot --

Please define "the Left."

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:32PM

You and your ilk. So simple, see?

Wah | 1.12.11 @ 5:41PM

For every question, there is an answer that is simple, succint, and wrong.

But who am I to argue with someone who loves their country so much more than me (which, BTW, is the only real question).

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 7:14PM

Truth is simple. You Leftists just don't know enough about the truth to understand that basic fact.

Liberals lie.

alex| 1.12.11 @ 3:35PM

Many posters use facts when defending an argument. But almost as many do not. They either parrott what their favorite show host is saying or what's going around other sites. Sometimes it's hard (for me anyway) to have a stisfactory discussion here because I can't sit at the computer for hours at a time reading and replying. If that's the case for others, it's understandable why emotion can be on top.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 3:52PM

What facts have you presented, alex? NOT ONE.

Now, please go back to the dirtbags at HuffPo where you belong.

alex| 1.12.11 @ 4:31PM

My comment at 3:35 was a reply to caitlin's question about what I meant by some posters comments being "lean on Facts." Sorry it got placed in the wrong spot.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:33PM

You still haven't presented a fact.

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 3:24PM

Oh, stop it! The Left is NOT open to debate, in fact many are doubling down on their disgusting accusations.

It's not about maturity, it's about good vs evil. Guess which side you're on?

alex| 1.12.11 @ 4:08PM

Sorry. That's factcheck.org

Shoey| 1.12.11 @ 4:31PM

"If the left is open to a debate, regardless of what they've done, the right should be mature enough to open up as well."

are you serious? the Left open to debate?

what planet have you been on for the couple of decades?

the Left doesn't debate, they lecture, they badger, they point fingers, they change the subject, but they NEVER debate honestly because they always lose when they do.

alex| 1.12.11 @ 4:37PM

My whole point has never been to stand up for the libs exclusively, only to point out that both libs and conservatives are guilty of the same things. Just read the replies I've gotten in the last hour.
"Patriot" has insinuated that I'm evil and belong with dirtbags.
I don't think I've attacked anyone personally, have I? Isn't this an example of why we need this debate?

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:34PM

You're lying. There's no equivalency between the Right and the Left.

tatosian| 1.12.11 @ 5:05PM

You don't like being lumped with the left but there's really no other description that fits so many seemingly disparate ideologies, beliefs and political agendas under one roof. So to speak.
Come up with something better.
It's not that conservatives don't make mistakes, never lie or name call; it's that they don't use that stuff as a tactic. They don't, insofar as they actually have (which is debatable) any influence in the political process, use those tactics to garner support for their legislation.
Far as I can tell, that stuff is not part of any conservative concept of good governance. .
"the left is open to a debate, regardless of what they've done, the right should be mature enough to open up as well."
Interesting.
While the political class (on the left) looks to more gun control, reconsidering our first amendment rights, the fairness doctrine and tighter security to protect themselves from further attacks from the right, er, misunderstanders of bigoted political rhetoric, er, mentally deranged individuals, you insist we should let bygones be bygones and debate?
Hilarious.

I Survived Arlen Specter| 1.12.11 @ 1:51PM

You are correct Mr. Klein. The left prefer bullying & ad-hominem. They do not understand debate in the least. Debate requires maturity & level-headedness, not to mention intelligence. The left are feelings driven & intellectually & morally bankrupt. Debating is a skill the left will never master because they don't possess the qualities necessary to carry on a civil debate. GOD gave everyone those skills, but those on the left rejected those skills & in some cases GOD Himself when they became consumed with leftist politics. End of story.

Alan Davidson| 1.12.11 @ 4:11PM

Every time I hear this type of attack by the left, I do not wonder why they would do so in such a time of tragedy.

I know why.

I read the "case-closed", crystal clear reason here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....11739.html

Real American| 1.12.11 @ 5:25PM

It's as if you walk up to someone and punch them in the face and then demand that there be an immediate end of the fight. Leftists have no credibility after their reprehensible displays here. Anyway, as someone once said... conservatives need to "punch back twice as hard."

Patriot| 1.12.11 @ 5:35PM

I agree. I'm so damned tired of being punched in the face. Aren't you?

EasyEight| 1.12.11 @ 6:01PM

The Left is inherently violent and cannot engage in civil discourse. How many times did main stream Left-Democrats scream vile hate at a sitting president? Former VP Al Gore accused Bush of being a betrayor and a traitor, a war criminal; Howard Dean said he was a liar and a loser; books, plays and movies begged for the assassination of Bush; images of Bush being be-headed were commonplace at "Peace" rallies; and Air America radio host Randi Roades played gunshot sounds after every mention of Bush's name. Who on the Left called Letterman to account after he joked about Palin's underage daughter being raped?? The Left routinely uses violence -- violent images, violent words -- to intimidate and silence opposition and to further their own power goals.

RINO in Name Only| 1.12.11 @ 7:01PM

The Left routinely uses violence -- violent images, violent words -- to intimidate and silence opposition and to further their own power goals.

Not to mention the occasional violent deed, as Kenneth Gladney can attest to.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/12/why-it-will-be-hard-to-have-na

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|1 comment

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|4 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|2 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|2 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|2 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|2 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|1 comment

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.