We are all familiar with that often used example of a loaded question. The question is dishonest because it presupposes certain facts. It’s a ‘gotcha’ question, a catch-22, damned if you answer, damned if you don’t. The so-called ‘Call for Civility’ plea issued by democrats and the leftist media is also a catch-22 proposition and the entire debate is disingenuous.
On the heels of the tragedy in Tucson, the actions a lone gunman were immediately linked to conservative politicians, activists and commentators, despite all evidence to the contrary. In a saner world, the very notion would have been dismissed as ridiculous and obscene. But the narrative has been constructed that this shooting was the result of hateful political rhetoric from the right, even though an examination of the evidence clearly indicates that this was the work of a lone, crazed gunman.
So, how should conservatives respond to the ‘Call for Civility’? Unfortunately, we are left with only two options, and neither is very good.
With the aid of the media, the left has been allowed to frame the debate and maneuver conservatives into an unenviable position. If we identify this ‘Call for Civility’ for what it is (a false issue and needless distraction) we will appear hostile and confirm their narrative. If we ‘moderate’ our tone, it will be perceived as a tacit admission of guilt. We will, in effect, appear to agree with the notion that our tone has been hateful, over-the-top, and a contributing factor to the shootings in Arizona, which is demonstrably untrue – and there it is, the catch-22.
The left, despite their truly hateful rhetoric, has been allowed by the media to seize the political high ground. Like a dime store psychic, liberals claim the ability to see veiled hate, racism or misogyny in any figure of speech or language conservatives choose to use. In other words, any disagreement with their leftist agenda equals racism and hate. Remember, the Tea Party was called racist by several congressmen and the NAACP. Remember, it was ethically challenged congressman Charlie Rangel who said, "It's not 'sp*c' or 'n*gger' anymore. They [republicans] say 'let's cut taxes.'" Remember, it was Jimmy Carter who equated disagreements with the policies of the Obama administration with racism. I don’t know about you, but constantly referring to your political opponents as hateful racists strikes me as less than civil. Although, it is a nice distraction from the issues and it puts conservatives on the defensive.
Has their strategy worked? In a word, yes. According to the latest poll, 35 percent of Americans actually believe that Sarah Palin is, at least in part, responsible for the shootings in Tucson. This, despite the fact that the shooter had little to no interest in politics or talk radio. This, despite the fact that phrases such as “targeted district” and “battleground state” is age-old political rhetoric that did not originate with Sarah Palin. In fact, these metaphors have been used widely by republicans, democrats and the media for decades.
During this season of guarded language and walking on eggshells, conservatives will be unable to use legitimate forceful political language, while the left will be allowed to fire at will. Conservatives will enter the next election cycle careful and guarded, worried that any word or action will be seized upon by the left and called hate-speech. It’s first down and the left has effectively moved the debate further in their direction from the line of scrimmage. Amazingly, they have managed to accuse their political opponents with being an accessory to murder, while simultaneously pleading for civility. Last but not least, they have managed to stifle vigorous debate over their bankrupt ideology. Instead of debating the legitimate issues of Obamacare, unemployment, the debt crises, Cap & Trade, or a nuclear Iran, we have spent the better part of two weeks on a snipe hunt.
How should conservatives respond? Perhaps, Instead of becoming too careful and guarded, conservatives should follow the sage advice of President Obama and never bring a knife to a gunfight… and in my personal concession to the left, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I meant that only as a political metaphor.
