Dude, Where's My Objectivity?

Last week, an 88-year-old anti-semite made headlines by walking into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum with a rifle, apparently intent on violently protesting a museum dedicated to an event he maintains didn't happen, and ended up gunning down a black museum guard who challenged him at the door. Given the short-term memory of the media, I imagine the news cycle will linger on this ugly story for another day or two, and then move on to the next episode of public bloodshed, be it airline crash, school shooting or another such tragedy.

For me, the impact of the shooting will linger a bit longer, if for no other reason than its proximity to my office building in Washington. I pass the Holocaust Museum every morning and evening; the day after the attack, I saw the FBI trucks and agents fanned out around the taped-off building, presumably performing post-shooting ballistics analysis, to figure out exactly where each shot was fired, and more chillingly, perhaps checking for bombs (the shooter, James von Brunn, apparently had drawn up a list of other "targets" in the DC area shortly before his attack).

The natural reaction to this fizzled attempt at mass murder, the one I've heard most people express, is simple disgust: disgust at an angry, demented old man brimming with racial hatred taking the life of a young security guard with a wife and son, whom acquaintances roundly described as a class-act, and doing so in a place created to preserve the memory of millions of other victims of that same hatred.

But for a certain, enlightened, moralizing faction of the left-wing punditry, this isn't enough. Von Brunn's lunacy can't be abominated in isolation; rather, it must be seen in a larger context. For you see, this ugly episode is the product of the "hate" spewed by right-wing ideologues in the media. Sound like cheap political opportunism? Judge for yourself.

Intones the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson:

"What we don't know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer -- the next 'lone wolf,' preparing to howl."

Quoth The New York Times' Paul Krugman, who deviated from his usual columns extolling the virtues of Keynesian economics and massive government deficits with this sermon on political ethics:

"Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment."

Both these and other liberal pontificators have seized on a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security, warning that domestic terrorist groups motivated by neo-Nazism and other charming fringe dogmas pose a real threat. Further, DHS noted that the election of an African-American president is sure to rile this motley claque, potentially leading to more violence.

So along comes octogenarian loon von Brunn, hot on the heels of the murder of noted Kansas abortionist George Tiller only a few weeks ago, and now the Paul Krugmans of the world are connecting the dots and tracing them back to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other perfidious sources of murder-inducing rhetoric. Writing in this week's Wall Street Journal, Thomas Frank (who failed to return my e-mail to him on an unrelated column) even goes so far as to suggest that "maybe [certain pro-lifers] deserved some of the blame for [Tiller's] murder," because they had the audacity to protest and condemn his practice of performing late-term abortions that almost no other doctor in the country will touch, thereby inciting a crazed gunman to take him out.

That such arguments imply a bizarre transfer of responsibility for acts of violence from the people who actually commit them to the politically influential right-wing media outlets that Krugman, et al, detest is bad enough. But there is a larger issue at play here: namely, the left's utter myopia regarding extremist, irrational language creeping into political discourse. And as if he knew all about my humble little blog and wanted to give me a helping hand, Times columnist Frank Rich kindly bloviated on this very issue last Sunday, perfectly demonstrating the one-way street that he and his ilk apparently live on. In regard to an obscure Michigan Republican party figure who has criticized Obama as a fascist, Rich huffily announced:

"He didn’t seem to grasp that 'fascism' is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find 'bad' because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler."

Really, Frank? We shouldn't "slur" a sitting president by likening him to Hitler? Then where exactly were you when liberal protesters routinely toted "Bush = Hitler" placards at anti-war rallies? For that matter, where were any of these champions of fair-minded, dispassionate political discourse for the last eight years, when Bush was accused of letting 9/11 happen to serve as a pretext for war in the Middle East, or when Bush was accused of botching the post-Katrina rescue operations in New Orleans because he "doesn't like black people"? Or how about the 10 billion other mindless rants spewed by the left blaming Bush for anything that happened to make them unhappy?

I didn't vote for George Bush. Nor do I listen to a minute of Rush Limbaugh, or watch a minute of Fox News, largely because I don't care for sensationalized news; but last I checked, none of these blowhards has harmed anybody, or called for the harming of anyone. Meanwhile, liberal audiences guffaw at Wanda Sykes' cheerful hope for Rush's kidneys to fail, rap artists glorify urban gang violence, and liberals in Congress drag bankers into show-trials and browbeat them on national television for supposedly wrecking the economy to arouse populist anger. The Times doesn't bat an eye. Apparently all speech is free, but only right-wing speech can be condemned as hateful or inflammatory.

The left's sudden rediscovery that nasty political rhetoric is, well, nasty, reminds me distinctly of the last time we had a Democrat in the White House whom Republicans dared to attack. I will never forget watching a clip of Alec Baldwin on the Conan O'Brien show in 1998, at the height of the impeachment frenzy resulting from Bill Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern. Working himself into a genuine lather, warm, fuzzy liberal Baldwin ranted in regard to Republican Henry Hyde, the Representative who led the impeachment hearings in the House:

"If we were living in another country, what we, all of us together, would go down to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death, stone him to death, stone him to death! Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the family, kill the children."

Not to be outdone, alleged comedian Chris Rock announced, in 1999, "If Clinton would pardon me, I would whip [Independent Counsel Ken] Starr's ass right now. I will get a crew from Brooklyn and we will stomp him."

Apparently, liberals are authorized to call for acts of violence against specific politicians; they are permitted to traffic in nonsensical conspiracy theories and histrionic accusations of sitting presidents; and when their party wins an election, they acquire the moral authority to abjure these self-same antics as "hateful." Thus can an unhinged old man's act of violence be hung around the neck of anyone who dares to oppose the new administration's agenda. A new syllogism is emerging: "If you're not part of the Obama solution, you're part of the problem."