...To that extent, part of the reason I'm totally unmoved by arguments relating to individuals saying "kill Bush" on a sign or whatever is because I simply do not recall feeling as if political violence was inevitable in 04-07 when the anti-Bush stuff was at its peak. In that sense I do not think the threats are same thing only because there is a total credibility difference in the sense about what feels both possible and inevitable....
Maybe I'm still too influenced by the image of the anti-war, pacifist rhetoric of the Democratic party in the late 60's and early 70's, but I think a big difference is that the right-wing does not envision the left as the types that would do anything as "radical" as take up arms or resort to violent means. Even removing any sort of violent action from the picture entirely, I think the perception that the "right" tends to have of the "left" is that they're a bunch of blow-hards who may "talk the talk" but aren't going to "walk the walk." And even if they do, they'll end up tripping over their own feet somehow.
So while folks may have been offended by some of the anti-Bush protests, they really didn't (or don't) see them as any sort of a threat. At least that's what the somewhat rational ones think. The problem is that there's a faction that's less rational and thus still feel threatened.
And I think many were completely shocked that the "left" managed to pass any sort of health care reform whatsoever.
...I think the root cause here is that there is a certain branch of this country that believes truly crazy things; for whom any liberal government is illegitimate regardless of the method by which it came to power. What is unfortunate is that I think one party has decided to actively court and, in some instances, pander to that crowd for political gain. At some point in time they've become a virus that infected to the party to the point that Presidential candidates have to actively pander to them. The dangerous part is to the extent that virus threatens to undo one of the social compacts of the way we relate to one another politically: that people who win the election legitimately hold the office they obtain through the electoral process.
Again, going back to the 1960's, when the SDS/Weathermen and the Black Panthers started to become increasingly radicalized, and began advocating violence as a means to foment what they felt was a necessary revolution in our society, mainstream Democratic party and the NAACP & SCLC distanced themselves from those radicalized groups. I don't know, maybe I was too young at the time to be fully aware of what was going on, but from what I remember and what I've studied over the years, it doesn't seem to me that the Democratic party of the 1960's and 1970's was pandering to these extremist groups the way the Republican party of today seems to be pandering to its more radical and extreme elements.
....We literally live in a world where a Democratic Congresswoman got shot in the head and a sizable segment of the media and the country has decided Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are the victims. Excuse me if I withhold my outrage at the liberal media and the predictable responses of the left.
I agree. But EVERYONE always has to paint themselves as the victim, or so it seems. This is where I truly think talk radio and bloggers have parlayed their influence. I listen to and read very little of it, but when I do, it always seems that the conversation is directed towards "my side's" victimization by the other guys.
