Violent Pacifists?

For many years, I was very active in the peace movement. During all that time, I met many fellow activists who, like me, were devout pacifists. Not one of them is what I, or almost anyone I know, would label a conservative or right wing follower. Not one. While some were ardent Democrats or nondescript liberals, most were either far left leaners or completely apolitical.

This is not to suggest that an individual cannot hold some conservative political views AND be a peaceful citizen. The vast majority of conservatives I've met throughout my life are law abiding folks who would never think of physically attacking another person UNLESS they needed to do so to defend themselves or their loved ones to save life and limb.

My point here is that, while many conservatives do not support indiscriminate violence, I know of NO left-wing pacifist who condones violence in any form. In fact, I know of few self-defined liberals or progressives who condone personal violence (except in emergency defensive situations) either.

So, it strikes me as more than odd that the mainstream media has painted the picture that violent rhetoric and a call to arms can be found equally on both sides of the political aisle.

For the most part -- though certainly not often enough -- people left of the imaginary center decry policies and initiatives, not people. We might be vehemently opposed to a candidate or elected leader's words and actions, yet almost none of us would suggest -- even in jest -- that this person or group should be rubbed out. We might very well demand change, but the change we want is more systemic, in nature.

Many popular figures (as well as many everyday citizens) on the right have no qualms whatsoever about attacking people -- more than their policies -- with rhetoric that suggests such individuals or groups aren't worthy of life itself. Instead of simply stating their substantive disagreements, they demonize others as subhuman traitors to so-called American [Christian] ideals. In essence, they draw targets on people's heads and suggest that any means necessary to remove such people from office or the public discourse is justified.

Take, for example, Glenn Beck's ongoing campaign to vilify a particular 78-year old woman.

If anyone thinks that the vitriol that Glenn Beck spews on his radio and TV shows doesn't stir people to aggressive and hateful action, they should take a look at the postings on his website, The Blaze, about Frances Fox Piven.

For two years Beck has targeted the political science professor as a Marxist Machiavelli whose writings constitute a manifesto for a radical revolution.

But in recent months Beck has escalated his hate campaign against Piven, a professor at the City University of New York, former vice president of the American Political Science Association, and former president of the American Sociological Association. He labeled Piven one of the "nine most dangerous people in the world," and "an enemy of the Constitution."

Not surprisingly, this has led to a dramatic rise in ugly threats to the 78-year old Piven...

It would be one thing if Beck wanted to dispute Piven's research and/or point of view. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. But when you paint a peaceful elderly widow as a "dangerous person," you've stepped far over the line. Even worse, in the shadows of the mass shooting in Tucson, Beck has kept up his vitriolic attacks against the professor.

Ruth Coniff of The Progressive recently made these points in terms of Beck's continued crusade.

As everyone who pays any attention at all to politics knows, the current political climate is not exactly a hotbed of 1960s radicalism, particularly when it comes to welfare policy. Beck pulled out quotes from a paper Piven wrote decades ago in order to make a general case that Democrats and progressives want to overthrow capitalism. But ever since President Clinton enacted welfare reform in 1992, there has been precious little support among Democrats for emergency assistance to the poor. President Obama, the biggest recipient of Wall Street campaign contributions in the history of Presidential elections, has shown more willingness to put big banks on the dole than poor people.

But in the alternate reality inhabited by Glenn Beck and his Tea Party cronies, City University of New York professor Piven is responsible for everything from the current recession to Obama's health care reform policies to violence by rightwing extremists. She is, he said over and over on his web site and on the air, a menace to society. In an Orwellian twist, he even connected her to the shootings in Tucson because of her support for civil disobedience...

Glenn Beck, like many other popular right wing commentators, celebrities and pundits, has stated that he is against violence and that his violent rhetoric should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as Thomas F. Schaller writes in The Baltimore Sun,

...for decades, conservatives have insisted that culture influences action. Violent or sexed-up video games, television shows and movies, though fictional, are routinely blamed for contributing to drug use, promiscuous sex, illegitimacy, gang violence and other social ills. Yet somehow the daily rants by conservative radio and television personalities about tyrannical government, evil liberals and murdering abortionists, though not fictional, are wholly unrelated to the actions of a supposedly isolated, mentally disturbed few? Culture warriors want it both ways...

In my view, Schaller pegs the issue square on. If conservatives are going to argue about certain influences in one instance, it is wholly disingenuous to argue against the very same influences when the spotlight is focused on them!!

The big topic in the news lately is that we need to engage in more civil discourse. While that certainly isn't a bad suggestion, it misses the point entirely. I really don't care how politically correct a commentator is. If he or she wants to be rude or crass, it doesn't tend to raise my hackles.

However, when a person suggests or infers that another person doesn't deserve to live simply because they hold views that you or I disagree with, that's an altogether different matter. Whether stated explicitly or not, it constitutes a threat to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It has no place in the world and we should shun people who choose to communicate in this way.

(Note: Check out my Tumblr blog for a slew of links -- including the ones featured above -- that dissect this issue up one side and down the other.)