One of the worst political writers in America is Frank Rich. He personifies the worst of the self righteous establishment liberal. Coming upon the 48th anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy, he writes in New York magazine of the "hate" that "killed" Kennedy, arguing that the resentment directed toward Kennedy by (presumably) conservatives is "eerily familiar" to that directed at Obama today. That hate, he implies, comes from the right.
Kennedy was killed by a self avowed communist.
The knots that the left has tied itself into in order to avoid acknowledging this has always been fascinating. For most of the intervening years, it has tended to blame some unspecified "sickness" in American society. Rich wants to blame the right for the murderous act of a man of the left. Nowhere in the entire article does he tell us who Oswalkd was and what he believed.
32 comments:
In general, the Left is inclined to kill; the Right is not.
That's due to an error in their 'moral-conviction' logic-box, which the Right does not share.
As G K Chesterton observed, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
More GKC: "You never loved your friends, my friends, as I shall love my foes."
Violence is the very last resort for any Conservative.
In addition to being "one of the worst" political writers, Rich also has been one of the less influential.
Dad29's material on Chesterton is good.
Another brilliant piece by Frank Rich.
Oswald was very likely a paranoid schizophrenic. His politics had as little to do with Kennedy's assassination as Jared Loughner's politics did with Gabby Giffords' shooting. Rich's point, I think, is that when a politics of hate is prevalent, grandiose wackos like Oswald are encouraged to act out their fantasies.
"Oswald was very likely...."
A Communist stooge.
Dad29 says from his ivory tower that "In general, the Left is inclined to kill; the Right is not" because of an "error in their 'moral conviction' logic-box.
And, to top it off, he has the audacity to claim that "violence is the very last resort for any conservative".
So says the man who repeatedly touts "Buy More Ammo" and enjoys projecting his own character flaws upon the left. PEOPLE use violence. PEOPLE kill. SOME of those people just happen to embrace a particular ideology. And the children in the room--those on the extreme left and the right--point the finger to admonish their opponents while putting their heads in the sand to their actions of their "own kind".
Professor--YOU made the inference that Rich was talking about ALL conservatives, when he clearly articulated it was the EXTREMISTS on that side of the political aisle--in addition to liberal elements, Cuban exiles, and members of the CIA--who were, shall we say, less than pleased with JFK's policies.
Recall that Texas in particular was a hotbed of hostility toward JFK, in particular his stance on civil rights. He ignored repeated warnings to avoid Dallas in light of numerous death threats.
Gee, I wonder what was the political persuasion of those individuals, and the measures they were willing to take to preserve their ways of life? Could it be RADICAL CONSERVATIVES who were willing to use violent means?
Something tells me that by labeing Rich as "one of the worst", Rich is actually onto something.
Sounds like you're a big George Will afficionado.
My guess is Obama will avoid visiting Dallas anytime soon. As their lovable, laughable governor put it, they like to tar and feather folks down there.
"Could it be RADICAL CONSERVATIVES who were willing to use violent means?" What about "radical progressives"? ie Lee Harvey Oswald??
"Si vis pacem, parate bellum"
May be a bit too sophisticated for Anony to understand, but I'll put it out there anyway.
But Anony's REAL problem is refuting the assertion that the Left is inclined to violence and the Right is not.
Bring on some evidence. I'll start with Uncle Joe--who was a piker by PRChinese standards.
I suppose one might cite the repeated acts of violence by "pro-life" extremists, who almost always are on the right. Bombings and assassinations have been a regular part of their modus operandi. Basically, they're the terrorist arm of right wing religious extremists who wish to impose their views on people who don't share them.
There's Timothy McVeigh to consider.
When was the last time you heard about a left wing radical militia group?
Regarding Kennedy, I was a child at the time, but I well recall the right's high level of hostility toward him.
Anony 7:56 p.m. here
Mazo Jeff--Please read for meaning. I NEVER disputed that there is no such thing as radical progressives. My point is that if we do away the labels the right and the left desperately pin on their opponents, all we have left is PEOPLE who commit acts of violence.
Dad29--Wow, Latin. From a google search. Impressive.
"But Anony's REAL problem is refuting the assertion that the Left is inclined to violence and the Right is not."
Hello? Anyone home? YOU made the assertion first without any "evidence". It is up to YOU to provide specifics in how the left, compared to the right, has a "knack" for violence, rather than conveniently put it on someone else to prove their claims.
Be the adult and take away the labels. PEOPLE, who just happen to embrace an ideology, are responsible for committing acts of violence when he/she thinks they have been wronged or are convinced that such action is necessary to make a point or advance a cause.
If a person on the right or left believe they have been wronged to the point that they maim or kill, it is due to their own perverted sense of self-righteousness and not because the ideology itself espouses violence. Their own conduct is to be condemned, NOT the ideology.
Only partisan hacks make the consistent effort to judge their opponents as being the "worst offenders". The left and the right are EQUAL to the task of fear mongering and hate worshipping...and using violence to achieve their goals.
For every radical lefty, you have a radical righty.
So, regarding Dad29's "truth"--the left is inclined to kill, the right is not--look up Kalispell, Montana and the growing "Patriot" movement.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006873/A-Montana-town-haven-extremists-How-anti-government-groups-finding-fertile-ground-Northwest-U-S.html
Again, a group of PEOPLE, who happen to embrace far-right ideology, are willing to maim and kill.
Just like these lefties wackos...
www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/14/idUS248104+14-May-2009+PRN20090514
The lesson? Lefties and righties ought to denounce violence by their own brethren, rather than point fingers like little children and cry "foul".
Bombings and assassinations have been a regular part of their modus operandi.
How many in the US in the last 20 years?
McVeigh was trained by AlQuaeda in Indonesia. They're "rightists"? uhmnnnhhhh...no. In fact, our SF folks are chasing AlQ over there.
AnonyII: the FBI--under Clinton--shot and killed the wife of a fringe-group 'rightist' type. The Army and FBI--under Clinton--incinerated 85 people at Waco.
You cannot name ONE 'rightist' incident in this country which compares.
But in at least one case, that of the assassination of an abortionist in NYState, it is worth noting that ALL pro-life groups condemned the shooter (after trial and adjudication.)
Still waiting for a Democrat of prominence to condemn PRChina's slaughter of its own citizens....
Anony 3:42 p.m. here
"McVeigh was trained by AlQuaeda in Indonesia."
Care to cite your source, Dad29, since you admonished me for not providing links? Practice what you preach.
A House committee in 1995 found evidence, the majority of it circumstantial, to SUGGEST, not PROVE, that there was a link between an al-Qaeda operative and Terry Nichols.
And, of course, the conspiracy theorists are out en masse to state that MAYBE McVeigh and Nichols devised the plan to bomb the federal building at OKC, that PERHAPS they had contacts with Al Qaeda.
Possibilities, likelihoods, coincidences, etc., combined with the benefit of hindsight, does not equate to TRUTH. So, try again, Dad29.
In any event, McVeigh was a TRAITOR and a MURDERER.
Dad29--"The FBI--under Clinton--shot and killed the wife of a fringe-group 'rightist' type. The Army and FBI--under Clinton--incinerated 85 people at Waco."
Overzealousness on the Justice Department and the FBI? Certainly. But let's not forget that Weaver was a white supremacist and Koresh was a leader of a cult. BOTH of their paranoid actions put the lives of their loved ones in jeopardy, and they paid the ultimate price for their "Buy More Ammo" behavior and rhetoric. Complicated situations led to tragic results.
Dad29--"You cannot name ONE 'rightist' incident in this country which compares."
Get real! Joseph McCarthy, the KKK, and J. Edgar Hoover. Their "incidents" over the course of their existence/careers embodies the RADICAL RIGHT, but they are not reflective of conservatives as a general rule.
Vilify the actions of the person who perverts the ideology for their own ends, not the ideology itself (in this case, conservativism and liberalism).
So learn the lesson, Dad29, and learn it well...
Lefties and righties ought to denounce violence by their own brethren, rather than point fingers like little children and cry "foul".
Dad29--Still waiting for a Democrat of prominence to condemn PRChina's slaughter of its own citizens...
It must be so easy for you to play the blame game without offering any solutions to the problem. China has a long-standing history of human rights abuses--just like the United States--which has been going on for decades. Democrats and Republicans have turned the other cheek primarily due to economics, pure and simple. Perhaps we, as Americans, ought to look in our own backyard before we make judgements.
www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/us-china-usa-rights-idUSTRE7382EH20110410
(The article also states that there was a prominent Democrat to condemn China's actions. So try again Dad29)
Suppose that it's none of our business what goes on inside China, Egypt, etc., at least that is what you have been touting on your blog repeatedly. The United States should only become involved when it suits our national interest, right?
Besides, what do condemnations prove? Wow, strong words. How about slapping China with a trade embargo? No, too harsh?
Then, tell us, Dad29, what should be done regarding China's less than stellar track record of respecting the rights of its citizens?
I'm all ears...
Let's try this again.
In general, the Left is inclined to kill; the Right is not.
I mention Stalin and Mao--we could include their successors--and you bring up McVeigh and quibble over whether Joe McCarthy was nasty.
Nice job of missing the point.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Dad leads us to believe that somewhere a circus is missing a clown.
somewhere a circus is missing a clown
And he's FOUND!!...in the Vice-President's office, Washington DC!!
I suppose one might cite the repeated acts of violence by "pro-life" extremists, who almost always are on the right. Bombings and assassinations have been a regular part of their modus operandi.
Citations? This has been much overhyped.
I'm hearing lots of denial that a lefty Lee Harvey Oswald killed JF Kennedy. - and lets consider that radical Bill Ayers dedicated one of his books to Sirhan Sirhan the murderer of Bobby.
-----I suppose one might cite the repeated acts of violence by "pro-life" extremists, who almost always are on the right. Bombings and assassinations have been a regular part of their modus operandi.
Citations? This pro-life violence while not non-existent has been much overhyped.
I'm hearing lots of denial that a lefty Lee Harvey Oswald killed JF Kennedy. - and lets consider that radical Bill Ayers dedicated one of his books to Sirhan Sirhan the murderer of Bobby.
the repeated acts of violence by "pro-life" extremists, who almost always are on the right.
Even granting your rhetorical excess in 'repeated,'--and positing ad arguendam that 1,000 people were killed in such acts (a ludicrously high number)-- we're still short several 10s of millions of the Stalin/PRChina bunch.
I agree that Oswald was one sick puppy and I would not blame the "left" for JFK's assassination. But it is rather obtuse to blame the right.
But he was far more political - and in a coherent way - than recent shooters. He was a self avowed Marxist who had defected to the Soviet Union. He was active in the pro-Castro movement, even appearing on local TV in New Orleans defending Castro and arguing for Marxism.
Rich wants to blame the political atmosphere in Dallas. But somehow this poisonous right wing atmosphere of hate led to no violence by the haters. To blame them - and them alone - for creating an "atmosphere" that resulted in violence by a man movtivated by a difference type of political hate with absolutely no evidence is why he's one of the worst.
But that's not all he does. He then tried to connect Dallas in 1963 to the myth of Tea Party hate and violence when, once again, the most significant manifestation of political violence has been perpetrated by a movement of the left, OWS.
Dad29--In general, the Left is inclined to kill; the Right is not.
An OPINION, not fact. So leave it to you to froth at the mouth and regurgitate Mao and Stalin as the sole evidence to support an OPINION. A lefty could easily make the same claim regarding the right by citing the tyrants and monarchs who espoused conservative ideals; the KKK and other extremist groups which cling to a racist ideology; conservative elements of any religion--especially the Catholic Church and their subjugation of natives--and on and on.
So, for once, be the adult and take away the labels. PEOPLE, who just happen to embrace an ideology, are responsible for committing acts of violence when he/she thinks they have been wronged or are convinced that such action is necessary to make a point or advance a cause.
the KKK and other extremist groups which cling to a racist ideology
Your ignorance is astounding. The KKK was not, and IS not, a "conservative" organization. They are racists, Jew-and-Catholic haters, and were the backbone of the Democrat Party in the South for years. It is not "conservative" to be a racist, although it apparently is the (D) way.
the Catholic Church and their subjugation of natives
Umnnnhhhh...more astounding! Two in one post!!
"Subjugation"? You can demonstrate this? Perhaps you are confused: Jogues, the Jesuit, was killed by "the natives." Evidently 'subjugation' failed, eh?
The Catholic priests in Mexico and the Yucatan advised Isabella that her soldiers were mistreating the Mayans and Aztecs--and her soldiers were promptly recalled.
To Dad29--Conservatism is marked by adherence to traditional norms and resistance to rapid, sweeping change. The KKK vehemently opposed fundamental reforms to the southern way of life, i.e. racial superiority. Clearly, opposition to integration--and the maintenance of absolute white supremacy--is a conservative position using this proper definition. So who are you trying to kid, Dad29?
Indeed, it is not "conservative" or "liberal" to be racist. Example--It was the southern brethren who happened to be Democrats, indoctrinated to a racial caste system, that engaged in dehumanizing acts toward a host of groups. So to generalize Democrats as "racist" or the "left" as prone to violent tendencies demonstrates a lack of reasonable judgement on your part. Racism and violence are not constructs of political party, they are the constructs of people! Learn the lesson!
It would similar to me making a generalization that Republicans are more likely to be adherents to bigotry simply because Trent Lott and Bob Barr had ties with the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (!). This group has repeatedly condemned “race mixing” and lamented about the decline of white civilization. The CCC is dedicated to preserve a status quo, i.e. conservativism, by denigrating minorities as “genetically inferior” and accusing immigrants of turning America into a “slimy brown mess of glop”.
Repeating lies--the Democratic Party is inherently racist, the right is less inclined to kill--must make you feel really special.
"Subjugation"? You can demonstrate this?
Sure can. Juan Gines de Sepulveda, The Spanish Requirement of 1513, and the Mexican Inquisition, for starters. Products of their generation, the duty of Roman Catholic priests was to evangelize non-believers through conversion, and the use of force was readily an option. Christianity, under the direct of church leaders, was also used to justify enslavement and torture. The RCC was complicit in the deaths of millions. Where were the papal bulls, edicts, etc. by the RCC that challenged monarchies from perverting religion into an engine of mischief?
Certainly a number of RCC officials worked to ensure the fair treatment of Native Americans--so long as they became converted!
Just because the history of the RCC has been tainted by these actions does NOT mean its mission is any less important or its believers--past or present--should be castigated.
It was the southern brethren who happened to be Democrats, indoctrinated to a racial caste system, that engaged in dehumanizing acts toward a host of groups
The Klan dominated the (D) Convention of 1924, too, as you probably know. They were one vote short of inserting a plank into the platform.
Zumarraga and the Inquisition? Here's the WIKI:
One of Zumarraga’s first act as inquisitor was the prosecution of an Aztec lord who took the name of Carlos upon baptism. He was likely a nephew of Nezahualcoyotl. Zumarraga accused this lord of reverting back to worship of the old gods and had him burned at the stake on 30 November 1539. However, this persecution was not considered prudent by either the Spanish secular or religious authorities and Zumarraga himself was reprimanded for it. For a number of reasons persecution of the Indians for religious offenses was not actively pursued
However, an Inquisition did exist. Same source as above mentions ~51 deaths in 240 years, considerably less than Klan-killings in the South.
The "Spanish Requirement" was NOT a Church-written, nor Church-sanctioned proclamation; it was a political document issued by the Royals--who, yes, were Catholic.
As to Sepulveda, you will note that Charles V ignored his rants. So what 'subjugation' happened??
Finally, I'll take Kirk's definition of Conservatism over your somewhat truncated offer.
"....the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.
Perhaps more important is Kirk's placement of "moral order" FIRST in the list of 10 Conservative principles. While 'conservation' is present in his definition, it is subordinate to the moral order.
But you knew that, right?
In that same Wiki site regarding Zumarraga, you conveniently left out this part the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Inquisition...”Antagonism with the Spanish led to the Maya resistance in the Yucatan in 1546-1547. The failure of this movement prompted more aggressive evangelization, with the Franciscans finding out that despite their efforts much of traditional beliefs and practice survived. They, under the leadership of Fray Diego de Landa, decided to make an example of those they considered back-sliders without regard to proper legal formalities. Large numbers of people were subjected to torture and as many of the Maya sacred books as could be found were burned.”
So what “subjugation” happened, indeed!
“Charles V ignored [Sepulveda’s] rants.”
In 1550, Charles V convened a special juridicial panel to advise him of the arguments between Sepulveda and Las Casas regarding the treatment of natives. The panel never gave a definitive verdict, although Charles V never formally intervened with direct action on behalf of natives to guarantee fair treatment by their church and non-church tormentors. The son of Charles V, however, strictly adhered to Sepulveda’s interpretation as a "Christian man".
Now, several years earlier, in 1537, Pope Paul III had issued the bull, Sublimis Deus, in which natives could not be enslaved and could be evangelized only by peaceful means. But this papal bull was suspended because of fierce resistence within and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. So much for sticking to one’s philosophical guns. (European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power)
“The Spanish Requirement was NOT a Church-written, nor Church-sanctioned proclamation”.
Patently false. Pope Sixtus IV in 1478 empowered Spanish sovereigns to exterminate heresy in their realms (much of the Requirement language came from his edict); Pope Alexander VI in 1493 and Pope Julius II in 1508 gave the crown extensive authority over this domain with the goal of converting Natives to Catholicism. Franciscan friars, with the blessing of the pope, began the work of evangelization, with the use of force as a legitimate weapon to be employed. How holy of these men to judge the religion of the natives as “paganism”, and purging them from their “demonic influences” (e.g. burning their holy books, destroying their idols) was the "appropriate measures". Native reaction was not docile, and church officials either authorized or condoned the use of violence to quell resistance. That is the very essence of subjugation. Just be the adult and admit that the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned and participated in measures which led to the slaughter of natives. The RCC had legitimized Spain’s presence and religious duty in the New World and engaged in violent means when necessary to ensure that natives were converted.
“Finally, I’ll take Kirk’s definition...”
Of course you will, because you cannot refute my definition! All you did was take some random quotation regarding conservativism as “evidence” that the KKK is somehow not associated with extremism from the right side of the political spectrum. Get real!
The Kirk quote was hardly "random."
It's from the 10 Principles:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/essence-1957/
...which, by the way, would have enshrined Sublimis Deus as the correct response to the Spanish Requirement.
By the way, the methodology of torture and subjugation utilized merely tells me that the Franciscans (and some others) were at the core, Lefties.
Church membership (or leadership) doesn't make one a Conservative. We had +Weakland here, who threatened (and took) direct action against whistleblowers vis-a-vis the homosexual child rapists.
And +Weakland was a Lefty, remember?
Dad29, so how is Weakland germane to our discussion? Let's stick to the topic, shall we, rather than make irrelevant comments.
Dad29--"By the way, the methodology of torture and subjugation utilized merely tells me that the Franciscans (and some others) were at the core, Lefties."
You certainly weren't paying attention to the lesson. Typical. To employ violence as the means to accomplish a goal is neither conservative nor liberal on its face. The leadership of the RCC--the popes, the bishops in New Spain--sought "to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions" (Kirk) by spreading the word of God in its strictest and purest form. That same leadership sought "to save something, to preserve something" (Kirk again) by the any means necessary approach, including the use of force, to convert the natives.
EVEN IF we entertain that (wild) assumption that the "liberal" Franciscans are responsible for torture and subjugation of Indians, then the "conservative" leadership within the RCC failed miserably to protect the natives from harsh and brutal treatment at the hands of "rogue" elements within their ranks.
(Interesting how you lump the Franciscans together as responsible for the brutality, rather than the individual members. So much for being reasonable on your part)
Anyway you look at it, the "conservative" element is...at...fault. So be the adult and admit that the RCC itself as a whole, not the "liberal" or "conservative" element, was at fault, either directly or indirectly, for the subjugation of millions of people.
Dad29--"...would have enshrined Sublimis Deus as the correct response to the Spanish Requirement."
Indeed, but it was rescinded...by the same pope who issued it! Not by a liberal, or by a conservative, but by a person!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimus_Dei
Only further evidence of the inconsistencies surrounding the RCC's commitment to "conservatism".
OK. If I grant your larger point--that individuals, not 'groups' are responsible for actions--then you'll never ever again speak of "social justice" or "sinful structures," right? You'll foreswear ever quoting Rousseau approvingly?
My larger point was that, in general, the Left is inclined to kill and the Right is not. But I'm reasonably comfortable with a modification: generally speaking, the Left's leadership is inclined to kill, whereas the Right's leadership is not.
Happy now?
Dad29--OK. If I grant your larger point--that individuals, not 'groups' are responsible for actions--then you'll never ever again speak of "social justice" or "sinful structures," right?
Stay on point, those two points are irrelevant to our current discussion.
Dad29--But I'm reasonably comfortable with a modification: generally speaking, the Left's leadership is inclined to kill, whereas the Right's leadership is not.
You just contradicted yourself. Leadership generally involves groups, i.e. a hierarchal structure. So you haven't refuted my points with evidence to the contrary or learned the lesson...the RCC itself as a whole, not the "liberal" or "conservative" element, was at fault, either directly or indirectly, for the subjugation of millions of people.
You assert that the RCC (a group) was 'responsible' for subjugation.
Yet you dislike the qualified generalization that 'the Left' (a group) is inclined to violence, and you dislike the even more restrictive "leaders of the Left" (etc.)
So now your dislike of the Church overcomes your prior objection?
Talk about contradictions.......
By the way, you have a seriously flawed understanding of how the Church operates. It is quite common for Bishops, priests, and lay members to totally ignore Papal documents. No different from speeding law in the US (mutatis mutandis).
Dad29--So now your dislike of the Church overcomes your prior objection?
Another one of your world-class projections. YOU inferred (wrongly) that I dislike the Roman Catholoc Church. I merely pointed out the fact--one that you completely and repeatedly ignore--that it was responsible for directly and indirectly leading to the subjugation of Native Americans.
It doesn't mean the RCC is morally bankrupt, or inherently corrupt, it just means this institution, like any other institution, has a black mark or two on its reputation.
And feel free to make weak generalizations that the "left" is always to blame for everything wrong in the world. I don't know if its laughable or sad!
Dad29--It is quite common for Bishops, priests, and lay members to totally ignore Papal documents.
Only further proof, therefore, in the lack of direction and leadership of our beloved Pope, IF what you say is true.
HOW ABOUT THAT! i'm re-living "the good will hunting movie" you know, the bar scene where (will) put's yuppie college boy in his place? i see your a sexual intellect or should i say a f------ knowitall!!!! was your explanation satisfactory to yourself? well, that's good!!!! to simplify in order for you to understand yourself is all that matter's......fact is: center left is more violent than center right!!!! not to say just as many hateful actions from either side of center occur. it's just the percentage's are greater against the center left!! due to our country having a majority of center right folks!! far left or far right both have knuckleheads that go to far!!! the moral conviction logic box is pure B.S.. FROM WHAT I'VE NOTICED THE LEFT IS INCLINED TO KILL THE WEAK AND TO RUN FROM ANY SHOW OF STRENGTH! "a smart man only believes half of what he hears. a wise man knows which half!
Post a Comment