The Party of Hate strikes again
New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi has apologized for saying that the President of the United States "should be shot between the eyes."
Certainly I agree with his characterization of the statement as "beyond dumb," and I'm prepared to accept his assertion that he is "not a person of violence." Trouble is, over the past six years this story keeps repeating itself as everybody from Leftist radio personalities to Democratic elected officials suggest the assassination of the President. Sometimes the person who makes the suggestion tries to excuse it as a lame "joke." Sometimes, as in Mr. Hevesi's case, that person has the integrity to face up to just what an ugly thing he or she has said. But either way, this pattern bespeaks a degree of personal anomosity that is beyond sick.
In fairness, there have been isolated incidents of such behavior on the Right as well. Emotions run high in politics these days. But the frequency of such statements being directed by the Left against the President of the United States is both disproportionate and appalling.
And then, there's the call from a Democratic party official in Florida for Secretary Rumsfeld to be physically beaten (later explained away as a metaphor), and the various Leftist venues in which news of the death of President Reagan was received with cheers. The pattern is an ugly one, but all too consistent.
Our common political life is an ugly thing right now. We said during the Vietnam era that never since the Civil War had our nation been so deeply divided. That's even more so today. Never since we carried our disagreements on public policy onto the literal battlefield have those disagreements been more mean-spirited. In fairness, Republicans didn't exactly treat President Clinton with kid gloves, either- though I don't remember quite this many calls for his assassination. And I can recall certain statements by Republicans during the current adminstration- Ann Coulter comes to mind- which made all reasonable Americans wince, at the very least.
There are reasons for this. From abortion to stem-cell research to gay "marriage," the issues that divide us today go directly to our most deeply held values in a way that they never have before; things which we traditionally held in common are now up for grabs, a situation which does not foster either good feeling or a sense of continuity with our best traditions. An unpopular war is seldom an event which fosters civility. The last two elections were reasonably close, and the failure of the Democrats to steal Florida and the presidency in 2000 through the notoriously easy expedient of a manual recount of repeatedly-handled punch-card ballots especially rankled because Al Gore did, after all, win the popular vote nationwide.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton- which, while I opposed it on policy grounds, I personally consider justified; the subject matter is beside the point when the President of the United States lies under oath- set the stage for what has been called "the culture of investigation." It is no surprise when the looney Left resorts to the president turning out to be factually wrong when he relied on the best available information as to the current status of those WMD Saddam never destroyed under UN supervision- as required by the 1991 armistace and seventeen UN Security Council resolution- by automatically deciding that the errors weren't errors at all, but intentional "lies." It is disappointing, to say the least, when public figures who are members of the opposition party mouth that sort of malicious rhetoric- and there is little doubt that should the Democrats regain control of the House this Fall, a serious effort will be mounted to return the favor and impeach Mr. Bush on precisely that crazy basis.
What Lincoln, quoting Jesus (and what a furor would be raised today if a public official presumed to do that in a major policy statement!) said about a house divided still holds today. We are going to have to tone down our emotions and our rhetoric on both sides of the aisle if the experiment of the Founders is going to continue very much longer.
But as a first step, can be agree that it would be an unqualifiedly bad thing for a president of either party to be shot?
HT: Drudge
Certainly I agree with his characterization of the statement as "beyond dumb," and I'm prepared to accept his assertion that he is "not a person of violence." Trouble is, over the past six years this story keeps repeating itself as everybody from Leftist radio personalities to Democratic elected officials suggest the assassination of the President. Sometimes the person who makes the suggestion tries to excuse it as a lame "joke." Sometimes, as in Mr. Hevesi's case, that person has the integrity to face up to just what an ugly thing he or she has said. But either way, this pattern bespeaks a degree of personal anomosity that is beyond sick.
In fairness, there have been isolated incidents of such behavior on the Right as well. Emotions run high in politics these days. But the frequency of such statements being directed by the Left against the President of the United States is both disproportionate and appalling.
And then, there's the call from a Democratic party official in Florida for Secretary Rumsfeld to be physically beaten (later explained away as a metaphor), and the various Leftist venues in which news of the death of President Reagan was received with cheers. The pattern is an ugly one, but all too consistent.
Our common political life is an ugly thing right now. We said during the Vietnam era that never since the Civil War had our nation been so deeply divided. That's even more so today. Never since we carried our disagreements on public policy onto the literal battlefield have those disagreements been more mean-spirited. In fairness, Republicans didn't exactly treat President Clinton with kid gloves, either- though I don't remember quite this many calls for his assassination. And I can recall certain statements by Republicans during the current adminstration- Ann Coulter comes to mind- which made all reasonable Americans wince, at the very least.
There are reasons for this. From abortion to stem-cell research to gay "marriage," the issues that divide us today go directly to our most deeply held values in a way that they never have before; things which we traditionally held in common are now up for grabs, a situation which does not foster either good feeling or a sense of continuity with our best traditions. An unpopular war is seldom an event which fosters civility. The last two elections were reasonably close, and the failure of the Democrats to steal Florida and the presidency in 2000 through the notoriously easy expedient of a manual recount of repeatedly-handled punch-card ballots especially rankled because Al Gore did, after all, win the popular vote nationwide.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton- which, while I opposed it on policy grounds, I personally consider justified; the subject matter is beside the point when the President of the United States lies under oath- set the stage for what has been called "the culture of investigation." It is no surprise when the looney Left resorts to the president turning out to be factually wrong when he relied on the best available information as to the current status of those WMD Saddam never destroyed under UN supervision- as required by the 1991 armistace and seventeen UN Security Council resolution- by automatically deciding that the errors weren't errors at all, but intentional "lies." It is disappointing, to say the least, when public figures who are members of the opposition party mouth that sort of malicious rhetoric- and there is little doubt that should the Democrats regain control of the House this Fall, a serious effort will be mounted to return the favor and impeach Mr. Bush on precisely that crazy basis.
What Lincoln, quoting Jesus (and what a furor would be raised today if a public official presumed to do that in a major policy statement!) said about a house divided still holds today. We are going to have to tone down our emotions and our rhetoric on both sides of the aisle if the experiment of the Founders is going to continue very much longer.
But as a first step, can be agree that it would be an unqualifiedly bad thing for a president of either party to be shot?
HT: Drudge
Comments