Clowns to the Left, Jokers to the Right (Updated) 0

I received an email today from one of my leftie mailing lists with the subject line

Tell Sarah Palin: Violent threats have consequences.

You may recall that many found Sarah Palin’s gun sight graphic deplorable when it was first published.

It was indeed crude, rude, stupid, combative, tasteless, and silly all wrapped up in one cute little ball of yarn-spinning (much like Palin herself).

But it was not a threat.

Calling it one detracts from the larger problem and requires ridicule, for it clouds the issue, which is this:

Adherents of the right wing quickly and casually label those with whom they disagree as traitorous, treasonous, and unAmerican (as well as perverted, godless, and whatever else pops up in their Roget’s–no insult is beyond their pale).

Rightwingers cannot brook disagreement. Anyone who disagrees with them becomes not just an opponent, but also their and the country’s enemy. Once someone is so labeled, he or she becomes fair game for whatever loony-toon decides that the violent rhetoric of the right is not rhetoric, but a call to action.

You seldom hear violent rhetoric from the mainstream left (such as it is). As Bob Cesca pointed out this morning:

And, by the way, screw anyone who says there’s similar language on the left. If there is, who’s saying it? Blog commenters? So what. Liberals leaders aren’t. It’d run entirely contrary to the nature of liberalism for a left-wing authority figure who enjoys similar status to Sarah Palin to suggest that we ought to use “Second Amendment remedies” as a means of pushing our agenda. I can’t possibly imagine Cory Booker or Howard Dean using such metaphors. And even if one slipped out, I don’t know any militaristic, gun-toting… anti-war pacifists. Maybe they’re out there somewhere hanging with leprechauns and hobbits. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that liberals aren’t violent (there are exceptions to everything, but not enough exceptions to make “left-wing extremism” as serious threat).

Furthermore, the rightwing’s tactics of hate militate against reason and compromise.

After all, one cannot reason with a traitor, can one? If one’s political opponent is ipso facto a traitor, simply because he or she opposes you, conciliation becomes impossible.

So, why do they do it?

The facts lean left.

Fear and hate obscure facts. Fear and hate is what they got.

Addendum:

I did not expect to have an update for this post, but I really must direct you to Field’s remarks.