Political vitriol is a bipartisan phenomenon. So is the inclination to use current events to score points against ideological opponents and to advance agendas.
High profile shooting sprees by white people are tailor made for the lefts agenda. They allow the left to point the finger at the root causes of crime. Those root causes are always an insufficient amount of liberalism and or an abundance of conservatism, to paraphrase a recent George Will commentary. Conservatism therefor is implicated as an accomplice to the crime. The answer is to silence dissent (ie Fox, talk radio etc...) or otherwise attempt to restrict speech of political opponents. It also provides the opportunity to discuss anew the lefts desire to disarm the citizenry.
The recent Arizona tragedy presents fewer opportunities for conservatives to exploit. It would be hard to use it as an argument for lower taxes for example. But it could be used as an argument for tougher sentencing or for more jails. The right has not done this, however. The reason is that it doesn't fit this particular crime insofar as the perpetrator wasn't free on a technicality or because of insufficient jail space. I would also like to think that basic human decency is a factor as well. So the right is scoring political points mainly by challenging the despicable attempts by the left to pin this crime on, well, basically conservatism.
I am glad to be on the right on this issue and I would be embarrassed to be a liberal right about now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
whats the difference between you pinning social ills on liberalism, and liberals pinning radical domestic violence on conservatism?
Its ok you for you to point the finger but non one dare point the finger at you? You speak from both sides of your mouth...you'd make a good politician with those traits.
The difference is that I don't hold liberalism responsible for specific crimes. Criminals are responsible for crimes. That said, if one party consistently looks for external factors for criminal behavior (ie, its societies fault) and subsequently diminishes the notion of personal responsibility, it should not surprise anyone if we get more irresponsibility and ultimately more criminality. So the difference is not in the amount of uncivil discourse between parties, as they are both guilty. The difference IS on the extent to which the parties hold individuals responsible for their own behavior. Speaking of uncivil discourse, yours is a good example.
Oh Denis, Anonymous SO exposed the "logical" quicksand in which you stand. By all means, keep struggling!
I will struggle, potentially, if presented with a coherent logical challenge. Your comment unfortunately falls into the category of cheerleading. Not so with anon who did pose a logical argument, which I countered by differentiating between crime generally and specific crimes. If you find my point lacking, please explain or find someone who can.
Bricka-bracka fire cracka sis-boom-bah, Anonymous Anonymous rah rah rah!
You are winning the argument Sean. How did you become so insightful and persuasive?
sean's new found debate technique of chanting rhymes holds much more substance than his old rambling. It's nice that he has found a form of expression that complements this thoughts.
Because it didn't look like it was from the real Seany I actually read that last one. Whoever it was has a great knowledge of early 1940s Warner Brothers cartoons!
Great catch Anonymous(II), you're not completely without insight after all. You got a long way to go to catch up with Anonymous (I) though who totally exposed Denis' double talk, to which Denis could only respond by repeating his original and flwed argument, only in different words. Beautiful! Abedeeabadatsallfolks.
Post a Comment