Vitriol in political discourse

       

          The tragic shootings in Tucson back in January of this year brought to the forefront just how acerbic political discourse in America has become. What was overlooked is that the assailant appeared to be linked with no militant organizations. As a result, attention was brought to an issue that, although not associated directly with the gunman, is worthy of analysis in today's political climate.

             Political discourse in the modern age is facilitated by the Internet. In the past, only a privileged few had the power to disseminate information to a wider audience. News' journals had the right to be selective about who published content within their periodicals and fringe characters could only dream of taking to the airwaves, particularly on the major networks. Today, gutter discourse has been taken from the bar stools and the dinner tables and spread to millions of potential readers on chat rooms, websites and commentary sections.

               The toxicity of the speech is evident on both sides of the political spectrum. Widespread opposition to Obama's administration by the right has certainly engendered rage, vociferated by ideologues who never lack for followers. What should not be forgotten, however, is that toxic discourse is not limited only to the right. Both sides are clearly culpable in this matter.

                The Bush administration, more so than the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, brought out widespread discontent among the progressive faction of American society. Such discontent was consistently verbalized. Attempting to break what was seen as the hegemony of rightist radio, Air America began syndication in the early part of the 21st century. The radio station featured one Randi Rhodes who suggested that the 43rd president be removed in a fashion similar to the one employed by a certain member of the Corleone family. In addition, street protests frequently featured placards of George W. Bush dressed in Nazi regalia, as curious a characterization for one of the most ardently pro-Israel presidents as is Obama, a man of African ancestry, being represented as a member of that now defunct racialist organization. In addition to caricatures of the president implicating ideological alignment with the SS, we were also treated to a mockumentary concerning the assassination of George W. Bush. While never a supporter of George W. Bush, the incendiary rhetoric of his opponents struck me as macabre, to say the least. Even though an ardent supporter of free speech, I nonetheless felt that a certain boundary had been crossed, one where the ability of the conscience to delineate true dissent from sheer vulgarity and menace had become blurred. While eager to see Bush move into retirement, I at no time ever wished to see the man a victim of physical violence nor be linked, in however ludicrous a fashion, to one of the most monstrous regimes of the 20th century.

             Moving along to the third year of the Obama administration, one can see that the malcontents on the other side are equally as adept at spreading hatred and fear as their counterparts on the left. Whether it be birthers, racists, extremists, conspiracy theorists, the two-minute hate of Orwell's 1984 has been extended to a period of limitless dimensions. What differentiates the left from the right in one respect is that the latter have mastered talk radio whereas the left have met either abject failure (think Air America) or the ability to retain the like-minded, but not draw new converts (think NPR). Prominent among the rightists are the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. Outside the medium of talk radio, but equally prominent in writing and television, is Anne Coulter. Few "pundits" have managed to consistently spew the sheer hatred as Ms. Coulter has. Accusations of insanity and an intelligence level more befitting a victim of cretinism have been levelled at Coulter time and time again. The accusations are naive, to say the least. Anne Coulter is neither insane nor stupid. Anne Coulter's CV reveals her to be an alumna of Cornell, one of the most selective institutions in the United States. Now, it can be argued that many people of sub-standard intelligence have been granted admission to the nation's most prestigious universities, but these people are often legacies, something Anne Coulter is not reported to be. Coulter also possesses a law degree from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a feat that is not to be taken lightly. No, Ann Coulter is far from intellectually deficient and far from deranged. What Coulter is is a canny, shrewd, self-marketing opportunist who has found the path to fame. This path includes giving voice to the yearnings of the insane and ignorant. With a built-in audience desirous of more and more, there is no want of employment. Even after dismissal from the National Review for her declaration of "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity!" steady work was well within reach via other outlets.

               Ann Coulter is not the real problem in this country, nor are her ideological counterparts in print and television media. The real problem lies in the fact that millions of people are willing to empower her and several others like her. A more discerning population would eschew the likes of Coulter and her peers whether they be of the left or the right. Insanity sells and the sane have come to realize this. Until the population start demanding civil discourse from both sides, and the use of reason, we can expect the Coulters and the rest to flourish for a long time.

Addendum: for additional details concerning the views put forth by Ms. Coulter, try a Google search combining "Ann Coulter" with "Canada," "9/11 widows," "Timothy McVeigh," "The New York Times," "liberals," "Arabs," and "John Edwards." It is sobering, to say the least.