There has been a lot of concern on these boards for a while now about the practice by the Bush administration to tightly control access to events so that there isn’t a disruption of the event by people with a contrary agenda. I don’t entirely agree with this approach, at least not all of the time, but I can certainly understand the impulse. There is undeniably a strain among the American political left that isn’t interested in genuine debate, and wants only to shout down its enemies.
Now, it’s pretty clear that stunts like this, as well as the disruptions of the inauguration and the conventions, are counterproductive. They serve to make politicians of both parties more afraid of open events, and make the restrictions ever tighter.
I’d dearly love to see more civil two-way discussion and debate at public forums in this country - it’s far too rare. But this would require far more civility than is currently being displayed in the body politic. And while there certainly are nutcases on both sides, currently the far left, especially on campus, are the worst offenders. This is due not only to a blind hatred for Bush and other Republicans, but also an inordinate fondness for political theater and a corresponding rejection of normal political processes.
Again, I do not agree with the tight control of these events, and want to see many of them more open. The reality is, though, that opponents of the administration will need to behave much more civilly before this can happen, as a practical matter.
Take out the “hatred for Bush and other Republicans” and you’ve just described the behavior of the pro-tube faciton of the Schiavo affair. But of course, you don’t THINK about it like that, so one collumn in your comparison ends up going neglected when it comes time to compare.
Undeniable. Also undeniable is that there is exactly the same strain on the right. Stunning indeed that you’ve discovered that the left is the worst. Truly, a great surprise!
Physical attacks are absolutely out of bounds. The people who performed the acts cited by you should be treated appropriately by citation or arrest (depending on the offense).
Verbal attacks are absolutely in bounds. Heckling public speakers is a long-standing and traditional American sport. The President, speaking as a politician trying to sell a program, is positively a public speaker, and should have the balls to speak to and attempt to sell his program to people who are opposed.
And if you claim to agree with her, you have just forfeited any respect you might have earned: she’s the entity who has shrilly decried every liberal as a traitor, in quite explicit language. Though we may disagree sharply about the proper course for this country, I have never thought that you and yours were treasonous. And I’d like to think that I and those who agree with me get the same respect from folks like you and Bricker.
Oh, and by the way, there are a few surviving members of the left wing of the Republican Party, despite the efforts of the Troglodyte Right (as opposed to reasonable conservatives like yourself) to eliminate them.
IMO, Coulter’s efforts to split this country down the middle are far more damaging to the country than any sophomoric stunt such as you justly decry.
Abortion clinic bombings are worse that pie-throwing. Hitting a peace demonstrator over the head with a flagpole holding the American flag is worse than throwing a shoe. Calling a man a murderer and sitting in judgment upon his motives and the mother of his children is worse that pouring salad dressing over a speaker.
I don’t excuse the behavior of any of the idiots you described. But to pretend that such incidents are the reason that George Bush’s public speaking events were filtered during the campaign is laughable. (Mostly, the timing is off.)
I don’t much agree with her, Polycarp, and I think her rhetoric does ratchet up the incivility. That said, though, she isn’t trying to stifle debate through her actions, which is an important distinction.
Even if I agreed with this, the loudest “MURDERER!!!” shrieks I’ve heard in the past couple years haven’t been coming from right-of-center…nor has most of the motive-judging.
How does the left qualify as being “far worse”? Some fellow punched out the owner of an art gallery for having the unmitigated audacity to display art. This is far worse than a little ranch dressing in the hair or pie in the face of a public figure.
In keeping with the sweeping generalizations presented in the OP, I presume that all people on the right would do this if they had the chance and therefore I suggest they be barred from any art exhibits henceforth.
Anyway: people were barred from attending Bush’s appearances because of bumper stickers on their cars or T-shirts on their backs. How is this behaviour uncivil? Shouldn’t someone be allowed to attend these public events unless and until they exhibit uncivil behaviour? As a practical matter?
As far as inordinate fondness for political theatre goes, it wasn’t leftists pretending to land on an aircraft carrier just to make a speech where there happens to be a ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign on hand. Not that an inordiate fondness for political theatre should be considered grounds to bar someone from attending a public event or private event for which they purchased tickets in any case.
Ho hum, another “ascribe the behavior of nuts to a larger group” thread.
She’s trying to stifle debate through her words by calling people traitors and terrorists. Yes, the distinction you made is real, but it’s kind of thin.
As far as “right wing shoe-throwers,” what about the people who harass people at abortion clinics and put up gigantic magnled fetus signs along the highways?
You do have to give it to the American right, their zeal for speech is unequalled in modern history. So much so that it’s recently come to our attention they are taking extraordinary measures to encourage the free flow and discussion of a number of topics they deem important, even from people who aren’t entirely willing to participate.
Kudos. Not a very common sentiment among some here, it seems.
So those one or two useless hecklers get to ruin the event for the all of the supporters of the speaker? People didn’t pay to hear some frigging meatsack scream about whatever nutjob cause they represent (The Bongo Lobby seems to be involved with all of those sorts, granted). People by and large go to speaking events to hear the speaker speak. Hard to do that when some idiot thinks their ‘right’ to what they misconstrue as free-speech equals screaming some crap at the top of their lungs for a few minutes.
I’ve said it before, and events bear it out: Leftists are the most intolerant people around. If they disagree with a person, they seem to think that mere laws, or even common courtesy, no longer apply to them.
And Polycarp, trying to equivocate riots or throwing shoes at people with the writings of Ann Coulter? Come on. You don’t like a certain someones writings, ergo it’s the same as trashing a block or two in the name of whatever idiotic cause?
Oh, please. The people who were making death threats against Michael Schiavo last week (and probably still are)–which way do you think those folks vote?
