“As a conservative, I disagree with the political opinions of liberals. But to me, a verbal assault indicates insecurity and weakness on the part of the assaulter, as in “Is that the best they can do?” This playground bullying – the name-calling, the screaming, the horrible accusations – all are intended to stifle debate, the very lifeblood of a democracy.”
—-Michael Fumento, writing powerfully in Salon about the increasingly viscous rhetoric of too many conservatives, and how it has left him estranged from his own political philosophy.
He writes,
“Civility and respect for order – nay, demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.
“All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.”
You can read his whole essay, “My break with the extreme right” in Salon, here.
_____________________________________________
Pointer: Volokh Conspiracy
Source: Salon
Graphic: Sleepless heretic
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I don’t agree with a lot of conservative positions, but I absolutely loved this essay. But then you read the comments right below it and you realize why there will never be a common ground.
These verbal assaults can only continue if we, as a society, let them get away with it.
And I would have to write, based on observation, that our record of calling out verbal assaults is, at best, mixed.
I’m not sure whether this tendency is more infuriating coming from conservatives, who tend to uniformly embrace the same talking points to be shouted over all opposition, or from liberals, who politely embrace every disparate view that can vaguely be identified as falling on their side of the political spectrum but then all come together to chant slogans to drown out views coming from anywhere on the right. Heck, I don’t want to have to choose.
Yay! Both sides are equal!
That was great essay and summarizes my own conservatism quite well. I always endeavor to start with basic principles and beliefs and think it through from there–never just “not what THEY said”. It infuriates me when either side completely switches positions just because the tables are turned somehow. I’m sure I’d make a LOUSY politician–I’m way too honest to ever get elected* because I would always be wanting to tow the party line rather than toe it.
And while I think President Obama is a terrible POTUS, you don’t have to look hard to find instances here where I’ve said I agree with him. You WILL have to look hard to find an instance of my referring to him as “Mister” rather than “President Obama” or something like “Barry”.
Respect the Office. Respect the man (mostly). Disagree with the policies (mostly).
–Dwayne
* This should not in any way be interpreted as some sort of assertion of my having larger-than-life honesty. Rather, it should be sadly noted how little it takes for it to be “too much” these days.
You feature and comment on this wonderful essay that makes perfect sense.
But yet the posts before and after revolve around sound bites (Chris Hayes) that the media has packaged up for the sole purpose of inflaming. I was initially incensed, completely disgusted with Hayes and MSNBC when I read your post about Hayes’ remarks on Memorial Day… until I dug deeper and learned more about the content of the rest of the program. But in your essays on Hayes from yesterday and this morning you make it sound as if…
Wait. That’s your point, right? To make it sound as if…
~Christine Robinson
Huh? You’re rationalizing. That’s not a “sound bite” and it isn’t taken out of context. His statement was 121 words, and 121 words carry their own context. It was a fully encapsulated thought, if muddled by Hayes’ rhetorical ineptitude. “I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word “hero”? I feel comfortable — uncomfortable — about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”—what part of that statement is misrepresented by anything I or any one else has written about it? His comment was a tangent, and tangents have little to do with whatever launches them. He and his anti-patriotic panel were searching for a better word than “heroes.” There is no better word.
My objective was not to make anything “sound as if…”—what exactly do you imply that my motivation would be to misrepresent Hayes? Hayes is a minor figure on a pathetically biased and unprofessional network that has sold its journalistic integrity for ratings from mouth-foaming extremists. I don’t give a damn about Hayes. I do care about reckless and hurtful conduct from incompetents, and its my job to flag it. He made it easy.
I DO NOT disagree with your opinion that Hayes remarks were incomprehensible, badly timed, etc. I shared your Memorial Day post (picturing your father) on my Facebook.
I’m sorry, Jack. I had/have no business commenting on anything related to television; I haven’t owned one in years and I stay away from “mainstream” news for the very reasons you’ve frequently cited in your essays: bias, misinformation, sell-out content that misleads public opinion, lack of journalistic integrity.
I am entirely unfamiliar with Chris Hayes or MSNBC, so based on what you wrote, I wanted to know more and as such, formed the opinion that he was simply befuddled and incoherent because of the risk of revealing his personal opinions. It didn’t occur to me until I read your response to my comment that Hayes is, as you say, another mouthpiece in a biased network.
I don’t understand why so many in America settle for news that requires hours of due diligence to decipher the real meaning behind each story.
Christine