Macoronies responded to my post below. If you recall, I called her explicitly on her linkage of murderer Eric Rudolph to conservatives and Christians. Her tendentious comment was:
I am curious to see whether the Right blogosphere, which has been quite hostile to Muslims accused of terrorism, will defend Eric Rudolph.
The burden of this throw away comment was clearly an attempt to smear conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, through "guilt by association." The left has played this card in the past with the Oklahoma City bombing, which was linked by some to mainstream conservative figures who had created a "culture of hate against the government." Needless to say, when I saw the opportunity to scotch this inane gambit, I took the opportunity to make a few fair points about the limits of dissent in a democracy. I ended by fairly pointing out that the Left has it's own tradition of celebrating or excusing murderers because of their political orientation.
You might think that Macaronies would acknowledge the point that her casual attempt at McCarthyite smearing was misplaced, that not all conservatives were incipient bombers, and that the Left has issues with its own "wacky fellow travelers."
You might as well believe that pigs can fly.
Macaronies response is an extended disquisition on "tone." Her thesis: my post was condescending; I called her names by calling her post "snarky;" I am ignorant of criminal law because I don't distinguish between murderers and accomplices. Now, I will grant that the paragraph she cites was condescending; it was intended to be since the throwaway comment was so slanderously irritating that a quick primer on basic principles was in order.
Here's the relevant excerpts of her post:
No sooner than I adapt to a Right Wing blogger saying a liberal blogger should be dismembered and left in a ditch than one calls me "snarky." Perhaps summer and conservatism just don't get along.
Sean Bradley at Lex Communis takes exception to the Diva wondering whether some Right Wingers will pity fellow traveler and alleged terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph. He 'schools' me. (Wink.) [Which then goes on to quote my post condemning Rudolph and anyone who kills for political motives.]
Neat. I intuited that she is implying Rudolph is a poster child for Christian Conservatives; I condemned Rudolph in strong terms; and the next thing I know, Rudolph and I are "fellow travelers." To mirror a point Mac makes below, Mac may not know me, but she does know that I condemn Rudolph - along with Mark Byron and The Mighty Barrister, at least - and yet I am a "fellow traveler" of "alleged terrorist" Rudolph.
Likewise, note the continuing "guilt by association" linkage. Some other "right wing blogger" - a vicious tempered lesbian by all accounts - said something about dismembering her and I called her post "snarky." Can"t you clearly see that the two things are identical?!? [clap hands, stomp feet, look serious.]
Well, of course they're not. Next innuendo, please.
After quoting my long passage that people who kill for political motives deserve the strongest punishment under the law because, well, people shouldn't be used for ends, Mac then demurs that statement just isn't enough for her because:
Well. . . It seems to me there was a sympathy factor for Timothy McVeigh from some on the Right, but perhaps my memory is getting fuzzy.
For crying in the church, where was the sympathy factor for McVeigh? William F. Buckley, Jr.? The Republican Central Committee? Was there a public benefit for McVeigh that was celebrated by National Public Radio? Was there a nifty cookbook with a happy smiling McVeigh offering his so clever recipes being purchased by the gross in trailer parks and Aryan Brotherhood enclaves through the miracle of the internet? Where was the international campaign to describe McVeigh as a political prisoner as has occurred for Mumia al Jamal?
I must have missed all that, unless this is simply an attempt to distract and continue a spurious smear campaign.
Mac then writes:
Brian Linse's sense of the present must be getting fuzzy, because he says some on the Right do sympathize with Rudolph.
Well shit-howdy! You think them folks realize that they's the same as them there Mooslum fy-natics blowin up shit in Israel cuz Allah toll 'em to? Same as them crazy fuckers what flew 'em planes to the towers?
The truly scary reality is that they actually just think our god can beat up their god, and our god-fearing president is just doing the work for Him here in the garden. Falwell and Roberts spoke it after 9/11, and these pathetic "believers" are back to remind us that fundamentalism is still going strong in the religious right wing.
Well, heck, I guess that proves it. Some lefty writes a parody of an ignorant Southerner inveighing against "Mooslums" and that "our God" is beating up on "their God," and you have pretty much nailed down your case about Right wing sympathy for Rudolph.
Finally, Mac reduces me to, of all things, an "ilk:"
Typical of his ilk, Sean assumes I have empathy for Mumia al Jamal, when, in fact, I don't. He also makes the mistake of confusing an accessory to murder with an alleged murderer, but I will leave schooling him on the difference to a criminal lawyer.
Well, no I didn't accuse Mac of empathy for Mumia. What I pointed out was that while there was no evidence of conservatives stumping for their "fellow travelers," there was a strong historical tradition of Lefties actually celebrating Lefty criminals. Moreover since Mac's test seemed to be political association implies support, I thought it was fair to apply her principle to her side of the politics and suggest that she should offer a condemnation of those criminals who the Left has actually supported - Mumia and the SLA. [Actually supported, mind you, unlike the illusory examples of conservative "sympathy" for McVeigh and Rudolph.]
Yet given a chance, nothing is said about the sorry support of Sarah Jane Olson by Lefties. Instead, I get a quibble that Mumia wasn't a murderer, he was an accomplice and snide shot at my not being a "criminal lawyer." I'll admit that I hadn't heard any claim that Mumia was an "accomplice" so I did some quick internet research and pulled up this:
Mumia was NOT busted and framed because he was a political threat to the establishment. He was arrested because he was found, wounded, with his gun drawn and resting near his hand, a few feet from a murdered cop.
Doesn't sound like an accomplice to me.
As for Sarah Jane Olson, some attention to the Felony Murder Rule might be warranted:
“Felony Murder Rule- In California, any killing that occurs in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony is treated as first degree murder. (Penal Code 189)”
You see, while I may not be a criminal lawyer, criminal law was on the Bar Exam. Although Sarah Jane Olson may have plead guilty to some lesser offense, in a more just world she would have been as guilty of murder as any hypothetical person who knowingly drove Rudolph to plant his bombs.
Last point, Ok, I give. Where's the condemnation of Mumia and the SLA? Are we to assume that your typical Leftist disagrees with my proposition that any American who kills another American for political reasons is "a sick, evil, distorted piece of cancer walking around in human form and deserves the harshest punishment the law can visit upon him" and that their self-perception of the purity and nobility of thier political goals is no defense.
Or is that a rule that applies only to those who don't identify themselves with the Movement?
Update - Another Rightie Condemns Rudolph:
Two if you count the comments. Patty chimes in with her observation that she has yet to hear anyone on the Dexter side of politics utter a sympathetic note for Rudolph.
I don't want to extrapolate too much here, but I wonder if there aren't two related functions in the "Rudolph is a poster boy of the Right" meme: projection and "no enemy to the Left."
I think, and I could be corrected here, that there is a historic problem with the Left not being able to jettison its more radical factions. A case in point is the Stalinist backing of the "anti-war" protests this spring. Even when called on it, Leftists generally felt the whole issue was irrelevant. On the other hand, conservative history is replete with examples where Bircher, Buchanan, Sobran, anti-semites and racists have been "sent to Siberia." Why this is the case isn't clear to me but may come from the fact that the so-called "right-wing" socialist movement of Nazism was militarily defeated, but the "left-wing" socialist movement of Communism wasn't. A good test case in point was the disparate treatment afforded Trent Lott and Robert Byrd for, let's say, racist comments. Lott is out of leadership; Byrd hasn't been substantially criticized. How much of that comes from different core attitudes to drawing the lines of group loyalty?
The second factor is projection. In my practice, I tend to pay attention to my opponent's accusations. I learned early on that if you are being accused of withholding documents or hiding evidence, then the other side is probably doing it. I think it's natural for humans to see themselves in other people, and where you have a distinct tradition of Leftists rallying for their guilty cause celebres - Mumia, Sarah Jane Olson, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss etc. - they fully expect the Right to do the same thing.
That at least is my take on it. I know I am painting with a broad brush. If someone else has a different take, or, if I'm wrong, let me know.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment