Monday Morning, January 12, 2011
We’ll never escape the outbursts of random rage that leave beautiful, innocent people in pools of blood. When a politician or law enforcement official or community leader takes to the microphone and proclaims, “We must take the necessary actions that will assure our community that this will never happen again,” I wonder out loud if this expert knows any history. Deranged people do deranged things. They’ve been with us since Cain and Abel.
But make no mistake. This weekend in Tucson, the senseless murder and mayhem inflicted on a gathering of people meeting with the energetic, articulate Congresswoman and her guests trigger outrage in even the most calloused among us. Apparently, the crazed perpetrator of the crime was on a premeditated mission.
It is difficult not to link this episode with the current political climate. Vigorous political debate is one thing. Vitriol quite another.
It’s been about three years now since I tuned Fox News and Rush Limbaugh out of my life. I listened in for too many years. I think I was one of the first when Rush showed up at UC Irvine on his “Rush to Excellence Tour.” I was in business for myself. I was intrigued by his pro-business stance. While his attacks on Clinton were fierce, I found them amusing and entertaining. And when Sean Hannity came along, I believed that someone had come onto the scene worthy to assume Rush’s mantel. I pretty much kept my interest in conservative talk shows to myself, living by the old maxim that religion and politics were private matters.
I soured on the whole conservative enterprise as the Obama phenomena gathered momentum in the last Presidential campaign. It became clear to me that in spite of the brisk denials, conservative’s fears of Obama were quite more than opposition to a liberal democrat agenda. The Jeremiah Wright fiasco clinched it. Yes, Wright’s preaching was provocative; offensive to most all of us. But the sheer relish with which Hannity and Limbaugh and their friends played and replayed the audio and video over and over and over again betrayed something deeper. I became embarrassed. Fair and balanced seemed to me anything but. Then they brought in Glenn Beck.
And as I stepped away from a pre-occupation that took way too much of my time, I began to realize that, in Orwellian terms, I had bought into the Newspeak. Old familiar terms redefined often enough lose their original meaning and their power. It came to me that good strong labels that were once noble, that had character, that brought understanding and mutual respect had been turned into buzzwords for evil. Words like “liberal” and “tolerance” and “diversity” and “compromise” and “egalitarian” and “multi-cultural” and “pluralism” in the world of conservative talk are synonymous with everything that is wrong with America. If you are liberal or tolerant, if you affirm diversity or argue for equality, if you celebrate pluralism – you are the enemy. If you care about the poor, you are a socialist.
To suggest that conservative talk radio is the only culprit is to miss the point. It just happens to be the narrow world I have lived in for too much of my life. Fox News somehow believed it was needed in the marketplace as “equal time” to counter the “liberal media establishment.” But the Glenn Becks give us the Keith Olbermanns. Sean Hannity gives birth to Rachel Maddow. Jerry Falwell gives us Mel White. Ann Coulter is in a class of her own. The vitriol escalates, all in the name of point/counter-point.
Rush liked to posit that there is only one thing worse than a liberal: a moderate. Give me a flaming liberal any day – he would say – but we must not, under any circumstance, accept the moderate. The moderate has no backbone. No ideological compass. The moderates will give it all away. They are compromisers. They can’t handle the heat. They can’t handle the truth. Pretty convincing, or so I thought then.
Reminds me of those preachers I listened to in the early years who sincerely believed that the hottest real estate in hell was reserved not for prostitutes and drug dealers, murderers and thieves, but those “liberals” who planted all those modern propositions in the minds of our vulnerable children causing them to question their precious faith. Or worse, those lukewarm believers who will be spewed out… moderates all.
So the placards express the rage. They label. They condemn. They legitimize bigotry. They reinforce prejudice. They trigger resentment. They seem so justified in the mind of the holder. And they become sensational grist for the deranged.
In Eric Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonheoffer, he exposes a sad moment in Christian history. Martin Luther’s vitriolic anti-Semitism fueled Hitler’s philosophy of Aryan supremacy. It was a primary rationale for what became his “Final Solution.” Christians like Bonheoffer were convinced that the church had a biblical duty to counter Luther’s misplaced rage. Sadly, too late.
It is popular to fault grand conspiracies. Hilliary Clinton blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for her husband’s troubles. Conservatives cling to a notion of a vast liberal conspiracy. Both are pleased to have a scapegoat with a name. It works really well as a fund-raising technique.
But for me, in the shadow of this terrible, irrational slaughter in a Tucson retail center, I need to make this confession: I do not believe that “liberalism” or “conservatism” matter nearly as much as so many seem to think. (Most people, I’m convinced, would have a hard time defining either one other than a way to choose sides.) I value diversity. I long for reconciliation; for civility; for genuine dialogue; for cooperation; for mutual respect; for inspiration that brings out the best in us.
And if that makes me a moderate, so be it.
Copyright Kenneth E Kemp 2011
Nicely said, Ken! I’ll join you!
Ditto!
Thanks, fellow recovering dittohead!
I’d prefer to call us discerning. I’ve known people who become absolutely terrified of the evil that is coming–even though they have a Savior–because of the vitriol.
Dear Brother Ken – You almost lost me until paragraph 7 when you acknowledged the responsibility for such angry discourse does not rest solely on the conservative media. But to suggest that “the Becks produce the Olbermans, etc” is short-sighted, I think. It goes both ways. There is much background information and history yet to come out before we understand the whole matter more fully. It is sad and tragic to be sure. May God be merciful to those who are suffering loss at this time and may He show His glory in unexpected ways in the days ahead.
Two points: I know a lot of beautiful innocent people who have been shot and laid in pools of blood. One is my son’s best friend who was shot through the head at a party after his freshman year in college in an almost identical way. I was at his housewarming on Saturday to celebrate his recovery to the point where he moved into his own apartment some five years after extensive rehab. He is black and male and not likely to be labeled beautiful and innocent although he is one of the most beautiful people I know and no one could have been more innocent.
Point two: If a similar political outburst identifying the vitrol agains the young, black and male (including the broadside against hip hop) would have erupted after my son’s friend was shot (it didn’t even make a line in the newspaper) and after each of the dozens of such shooting I have seen in Chicago, then I could better absorb the political rhetoric capitalizing on this tragic event. The real divide isn’t between Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman. That’s just a smokescreen for the white supremacy both enjoy the benefits of and protect at all cost.
Ken,
you are on fire today! I did listen to Limbaugh a little in the 90’s but not for long. The B”ill O’rile you ups” and the “Ober-cons” contribute to the creating of the problems of a two party system gone wild. The media loves the hatred spewed from both sides. We need to stop and listen for solutions that we can all agree on (my dream) and not reduce everything to left and right.
Jim
Ken, I always appreciate your Monday morning insight. Today’s is the best yet. God bless you for your wisdom. – Deniece
Well said…showing compassion, love and kindness while holding to our principles is a difficult road to navigate, but one that Christ calls us to pursue. Thank for your insights and the reminder of where our allegiance should be.
Ken, if you are going to link “these episodes to the current political climate” then you need to expand what you mean by current. it is “not difficult” to make a jump from the current issues affecting Arizona and the nation to the wanton violence that took the lives of a judge, a little girl, and others, and has endangered the life and career of a public servant. But, as in chess or checkers, that jump may not be correct and will put you in check. I urge you to think this through a bit more…I know that does not make for provocative blogs, but it is a mainstay of civil discourse.
JFK was killed by a committed marxist and the press asked, “what’s wrong with America that this could happen?” RFK was killed by a Palestinian activist who didn’t like RFK’s support of Israel. When the recent movie about that assassination was released it never even mentioned the killers name, his affiliation or his motivation. I suppose because it was too politically incorrect for our current political climate. I will spare you the too-long list of other loner, mass killers of college students, professors, ex-Beatles as well as attempts on the lives of Presidents Ford and Reagan by similar types.
The shooter in this case was “fixated” on the congresswoman not for her political stands, she is a strong advocate of the second amendment and is outspoken regarding the Fed’s willingness to secure our borders. He evidently felt snubbed by her by in 2007 and not taken seriously. All of us who have a public profile know the difficulty of dealing appropriately with a confused person in a public setting. This killer is a product of drugs,the occult, the internet, obvious mental and irrational emotional problems, influences like Karl Marx and Hitler (both of whose books were on his shelf) not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
There is much more in your post that we could talk about over coffee sometime. I write in response because I take it seriously that you desire discourse and weren’t just venting. I encourage you to re-read your Orwell and see where Newspeak comes from. Remember, the first to proclaim the President a “socialist” was not Fox News but the cover story,”WE’RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW, by NYT’s columnist ,Paul Krugman, on the February 7, 2009 edition of Newsweek Magazine.
I think it would be worth your while to re-examine what a “conservative” believes and what a “liberal” believes. Ideas do make a difference. Forgive me for sounding cheeky, but your definition of “moderate” reminds me of what the Lord Jesus called “lukewarm” in Rev. 3:15&16. All positions can be distorted, of course. I’m sure you have some boundary lines on “diversity”, etc. Jesus didn’t go to the cross and agonize to save the “best of us”. He came because he realized the worst in us.
Your blog is for leaders. At some point leaders have to make decisions, “choose sides” in an issue. What leaders believe will influence those decisions. That is what makes real leadership hard!
I trust you will not read my comments as “vitriol.” I think this issue in Arizona will be a major event in our understanding of who we are as a nation. In our church yesterday I led a time of silence and prayer for the congresswoman and the people of Arizona. I too am deeply disturbed about what happened. I am also deeply disturbed about the instant politicization and blaming that is all too typical of much of our national press. For example, on November 5 of last year, after the election, Clinton advisor, Mark Penn opined on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, that Bill Clinton needed the Oklahoma bombing to reconnect with the American public after his midterm “shellacking.” He then went on to say that President Obama needed “a similar event” to reconnect with the American public after his “shellacking.” Did this influence the shooter?
I felt similar outrage when a movie came out in President Bush’s final year about assassinating him and there was no outcry from the liberals or the moderates about such an incindiary project.
I say let’s all wait for some of the dust to settle and measure our opinions and responses and pray for this dear lady, the Congresswoman, her family, and the families of all the other victims of this shooting. This is not an event for instant analysis…especially for leaders.
Let’s have coffee again soon!
psailhamer
Wow. Thanks, Paul. I’ll look forward to that coffee.
Hi Ken,
Wow! I find myself much more in agreement with Paul Sailhammer than with you on this one. It will be interesting to discuss at our next Huckleberry’s lunch. Sometimes it is important to take a stand on things, even when taking the stand is understood as “hate speech” automatically by the other side. Standing in the middle, though sometimes appropriate, does not seem so on issues like abortion or euthanasia (for convenience or enconomic reasons) or redefinitions of marriage or caring for the poor in tangible and sacrificial ways or standing with the weak and oppressed in our society. Taking a stand on any of those will be polarizing within the cultures in which we live and among which we circulate (some “Christian” and some not). Examples which can be cited of attacking the other person who holds an opposite view from ours, are always inappropriate, of course. May we stand far away from that behavior.
–Steve
This may make me persona non grata but here goes……….I’m no fan of Rush Limbaugh. Far from it. But I do admit that, from time to time I’ll listen to his ideas and generally find him to be lucid and credible, albeit a bit over the top with the scorching rhetoric. Having said that, though, I have friends who are committed listeners of him. None are lunatics. Rather, most are intelligent, solid citizens who are merely concerned with what they believe is the politically correct drift of the nation. That may sound like a generalization but I’m not sure how else to phrase it. To be sure there are ethical lapses within both parties, of course. All humanity shares the same disease. Still there is legitimate concern about blatant double standards within the media. Someone should be the clarion, correct? Limbaugh often goes too far, though, and I will readily admit that. Unfortunately there’s no denying it sells to an eager audience.
This probably sounds like a diatribe, and perhaps it is. Yet I find the convenient arguments that this troubled individual acted based on political “vitriol” to be disingenuous. Any committed reader of Marx and Hitler has demonstrated a certain level of gravitas. Are we to believe, then, that he/she is so narrow minded as to be manipulated by clever talk show hosts? That is the height of naiveté. Lunacy knows no political affiliation.
Finally, I would like to reiterate the previous post which referenced the Orwellian allusion and which stated, “I encourage you to re-read your Orwell and see where Newspeak comes from.” Quite right. As you know Newspeak was the ultimate political tool because its sole aim was to narrow human thought by eliminating language. Eventually thought crime (anything remotely opposed to the government) would become literally impossible because there would be no words with which to form it. Nouns, verbs, even adjectives became superfluous because “a word contained its opposite within itself.”
If civil (and at times acrimonious) discourse is discouraged and only the powerful control ideas, beware! Does the right go too far? Definitely! Does the left? Sure. But what’s the alternative? There are real philosophical differences. They won’t dissolve. No matter how much we say we’d like to tame the content. I’m not advocating the wanton denigration of one’s political opponent but I suggest that our republic functions on vigorous and open debate about ideas. That is often messy.
Your BEST post yet – BRAVO! Probably not one that most would expect.
KEN THIS MAN IS PROBABLY A PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC AND LISTENED TO VOICES IN HEAD AND NOT THE POLITICAL VITRIOL. ONE MUST NOT TREAD ON FREE SPEECH EVEN IF IT IS MISGUIDED AND TROUBLESOME IN ITS HYPERBOLES FROM BOTH SIDES.DISCERNING PEOPLE CAN LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES AND DETERMINE WHERE THEY STAND. I LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES IF YOU WILL,IE. HANITY AND MSNBC. THESE FOLKS DO NOT LAY OUT VITRIOL BUT RATHER ARE MOTIVATED BY VERY GUT LEVEL FEELINGS RIGHT OR WRONG JUST AS YOU ARE KEN. GREAT ARTICLE BECAUSE IT MAKES US ALL THINK. ROYCE
Hi Ken and Paul; when are you having coffee. I’d like to join you – even buy you your “drug of choice”
I personally am a bit leary of labels unless it be that I am a”follower of Jesus Christ” and am “seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness (albeit imperfectly).
I don’t listen to the tv talk shows or listen to the radio ones but do read news magazines such as “Time” and “The Week.”
However, I am more concerned with what God’s kingdom is to look like. So much of the stuff we are concerned about in the USA (myself included) has to do with my rights and my comforts. I also read Voice of the Martyrs detailing the plight and prosperity of the Persecuted Churtch. I rather doubt that they would care much about the politics of kingdom USA.
Well about that coffee date…
May I join you for coffee too? I just reviewed Matthew 24 and I am ready:)