Democrats Demonize Dissent

Allow me to recall something said by John Brennan (Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism) in a USAToday op-ed back in February:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

He was speaking, of course, of criticism directed at the Obama Administration. When a Bush Administration official said something similar, Democrats loudly complained that their patriotism was being questioned. I pointed out the hypocrisy in a post at the time.

In fact, neither the Bush Administration nor the Obama Administration was really questioning anyone's patriotism. But what the Democrats are manifestly doing is as bad or worse. They have launched a campaign on all fronts to blacken the reputation of thousands of Americans whose only crime was to come out in public and criticize the party in power. Powerline has been all over this.

From the New York Times:

In advance of a symposium on Friday about the attack on the Oklahoma City federal building and its current relevance, [President] Clinton, who was in his first term at the time of the bombing, warned that attempts to incite opposition by demonizing the government can provoke responses beyond what political figures intend.

"There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do," Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, "were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line."

In other words, "political figures" who "demonize" the government are indirectly guilty of encouraging domestic terrorism. Or at least they are when the President is a Democrat. Clinton doesn't mention the anti-war protesters who demonized President Bush, hung him in effigy over and over, and called for his execution or murder.

Powerline alerts us to Representative Betty McCollum's (D-MN) remarks on the House Floor Tuesday. Here is a bit of it:

"When Members of Congress compare health care legislation to 'government tyranny,' 'socialism,' or 'totalitarianism' – in the hopes of scoring political points is like pouring gas on the fire of extremism.

"The Members of this House Democrats and Republicans – have a duty and an obligation to end the dangerous name-calling that can only inspire the extremist militias and phony patriots.

"In the most free, prosperous and greatest democracy on earth it is time to return to a civil, decent debate of public policy.

"I don't want another 'Oklahoma City' to ever take place again.

What is Rep. McCollum's evidence of a link between criticizing health care legislation and Timothy McVeigh's crime?

"Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center states, 'Individuals associated with the Patriot movement during its 1990s heyday produced an enormous amount of violence, most dramatically the Oklahoma City bombing…'

"Today, Mr. Potok states, 'as the movement has exploded, so has the reach of its ideas, aided and abetted by commentators and politicians…'

Notice the word "associated". There is a precise term for this in politics: it is guilt by association. Timothy McVeigh criticized the government. The Tea Party people criticize the government. Therefore the Tea Party people are Timothy McVeigh. There is another term for it: McCarthyism.

The fraudulent strategy of guilt by association is all the Democrats have against the Tea Party movement. I have shown how Paul Krugman and Chris Matthews made fools of themselves when they tried to show that Republican rhetoric was extremist, for they personally and Democrats generally use exactly the same kind of rhetoric all the time.

This is deplorable. There is no evidence that extremism is on the rise in America, and no evidence that the Tea Party movement is in any way connected with or responsible for political violence. What Clinton and McCollum are trying to do, aided by the liberal punditocracy, is to demonize dissent.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Look up the definition of "sedition." Then watch Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. Listen to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and the "birthers." Then we'll talk. The moderate Republicans have an obligation to disassociate themselves with the radical fringe, and to do it clearly, publicly and unequivocally. Same is true regarding the Dems and the radical left. Dissent is one thing, sedition, nullification and secession are quite another. Fox news has been put on notice, and it appears that at long last, Rupert Murdoch may be listening. So too should we all.

[George Mason]

Bill; Did you ever bother to listen to Ted Kennedy, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi et al; when they were intent upon helping Al Queada achieve victory in Iraq? What you are witnessing from the left today is their firmly held belief that the First Amendment protects only those who agree with the left. Conservative say "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Leftists say "If I don't agree with what you say I am entitled to do what ever it takes to shut you up." What you are now being exposed to by the Obamites and Clinton and company is the type of smear campaign so commonly used by the left during the Clinton administration. There is not attempt to engage on an intellectual level, only dishonest attributions and insults.

[Miranda Flint]

With only three percent of Americans giving congress a performance rating of excellent and eight percent giving it a rating of "good," the most disconnected and alienated people in the public eye are probably the members of congress. What, I wonder, would Bill Clinton have us make of that?

[Bill Fleming]

George, that's exactly the kind of BS I'm talking about. Thanks for the illustration. Accusing your fellow countrymen of siding with the enemy does nothing to advance the conversation and "form a more perfect union" among "we the people." The best I can do is defend your right to make a bad example of yourself. So again, thanks. Who needs Rush Limbaugh and Michelle (they're all thugs) Bachmann when we have the likes of you?

[George Mason]

Bill old boy please go back and read your post. Then provide the definition of sedition. You expect to throw mud with no response. As was stated, leftist
believe that free speech belongs only to them. Some of us do not believe a perfect union amounts to bowing and scraping to the Obama administration. We certainly didn't see the left doing that during the Bush administration did we? Back then dissent was patriotic. As KB has posted, what we are seeing today from the right pales in comparison to the calls from the left a few short years ago. We the people believe we have the right to speak our minds. Even if it hurts the overly sensitive feelings of our political rivals.

[KB]

Bill: thanks for the comment, it makes my point. I am no fan of Beck, Hannity, or Palin. Rep. Bachmann, though occasionally over the top, is exactly the kind of person that Democrats frequently admire on the other side. All of these people are vehement in their criticisms of the government, but seditious? Please! If you really meant what you said you'd be advocating the criminalization of dissent.

[Bill Fleming]

Ken, name a person on the left who is the mental equivalent of Michelle Bachmann.

I would think that a university professor would be more interested in clarifying
a clear bright line between sedition and dissent, rather than trying
to blur it. To say that some of the words of the far right and the actions of
their followers of late have not (perhaps inadvertently) crossed that line
is intellectually dishonest. One reason for their doing so is that they have not
been properly informed by those who DO know the difference.

Persons such as yourself.

Recently you held Cory H.'s feet to the fire regarding your definition of "pacifism"
in light of the actions taken by one who proposes to be one. I would expect you
to use the same standard when you discuss the line between sedition and dissent.

[Bill Fleming]

George, definition of 'Sedition': "Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state."

[Bill Fleming]

Dissent: Disagreement with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.

The difference of course is the British concept of "loyal opposition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Opposition

[Bill Fleming]

Now, Ken, as for Michelle Bachmann, I want to hear your take on the following:

"Asked about the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, Bachmann told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

Bachmann also told her constituents she was "a foreign correspondent on enemy lines," sending Minnesotans warnings through her blog, Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace." - source: Huffington Post

And then, of course this, live from the floor of Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY&feature=player_embedded

Again, read the definitions first.

Now what is it?

Dissent? Or Sedition?

[William]

Well Bill, I consider John Kerry an example of one who's words and actions might reasonably be considered sedition or treason.

"John Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba. Kerry, by his own account of his actions and protests, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare."
http://patriotpost.us/petition/kerry/

As a member of the Armed Forces in the 70s, I well remember the words and actions of Senator Kerry. I not only remember, I will never forget.

[KB]

Bill: Thanks for the vigorous comments. You have made this an excellent thread. But again, I think you prove my point. As I have shown in previous posts, Democrats are as prone to quazi-military metaphors as Republicans. When the President spoke of bringing a gun to a knife fight, was he talking about real violence? Of course not.

In a free speech regime, the concept of 'sedition' is all but useless. Sedition acts from earlier in the last century all the way to the founding era have been largely discredited. For sedition to have any coherent meaning (without threatening free speech) it would have to be closely tied to legal involvement with actual insurrection or at least a conspiracy to commit insurrection. But actual acts of insurrection can be targeted by the laws without paying much attention to the rhetoric involved.

Do you have any evidence that Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann are legally connected to any actual insurrection? Of course not. I concede that Rep. Bachman's rhetoric is over the top, though no more over the top than a lot of things written by Thomas Jefferson. One might argue that Bachmann runs the risk of encouraging real domestic violence. I am skeptical. The Timothy McVeighs of this world have little need for the Michelle Bachmanns. But it is one thing to accuse Rep. Bachmann of irresponsible speech. It is another thing, and silly, to accuse her of sedition.

Your second Bachmann quote ("a foreign correspondent on enemy lines") really proves my point. That is typical boilerplate. When newly elected Democrats flooded into committee rooms after the 1974 election, one veteran Democrat remarked "reinforcements have arrived!" Was she contemplating a real armed attack on Republicans? Let's not be stupid.

What your argument shows is that when you insist on describing any political speech as seditious when it is unconnected with real insurrection, you end up policing political speech for anything that offends you. What you are trying to do is demonize offensive speech and declare it illegitimate. That ain't the American way.

[KB]

PS. You ask me to "name a person on the left who is the mental equivalent of Michelle Bachmann." Maxine Waters on a good day.

[Guard]

The Neo-Conservatives and Bush did the same thing when the shoe was on the other foot. There's nothing new here that we haven't already experienced. Pendelum continues to swing and shoes continue to drop...tick tock...tick tock...