I accept my apologies
Pull out his eyes,
Apologize.
Apologize,
Pull out his eyes.
Apologize,
Pull out his eyes.
Pull out his eyes,
Apologize.
Fans of James Joyce will remember this quotation from "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." I thought if the other day when some colleagues and I were discussing whether it was fair to hold John McCain (or even Sarah Palin) accountable for what some wacko reportedly said at a GOP campaign rally in reference to Barack Obama -- to wit, "Kill him!" (The Secret Service is investigating whether a threat in fact was made.)
Should McCain -- or Palin, who was speaking when the "kill him" cry supposedly went up -- apologize for the fact that her attack on Obama's relationship with a reformed domestic terrorist incited at least one listener to give vent to homicidal thoughts? I do think McCain and Palin should apologize about their exaggeration and exploitation of Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers. It's a demagogic and unfair line of attack. But is it an incitement to murder for which McCain-Palin should apologize -- or even denounce?
Such a denunciation may be good politics, but I don't think it's necessary as a moral matter or even as an exercise in political accountability. Concede that the guilt-by-association gibe at Obama is unfair and even sleazy. It doesn't involve, even implicitly, a call for Obama's assassination, any more than denunciations of George W. Bush as a "war criminal" agitate for someone to organize a U.S. version of the plot against Hitler. Incitement to murder is legitimately a crime; making an emotional argument -- against abortion, or for Palestinians -- isn't, even if a psychologically aberrant disciple takes the argument an obscene step further. It's hard to imagine a political or religious cause that hasn't driven such people to violence.
Also, there is a long history of partisans trying to get the one-up on opponents by demanding that they apologize for people "on their side" who behave criminally or outrageously. It's a trap. By apologizing for something (like the shout of "kill him" by a political supporter), you seem to accept that somehow it's your responsibility. Does anyone really believe McCain and Palin want their supporters to off Obama?
Sometimes it's necessary for governments or leaders to denounce "their" extremists, even at the risk of seeming to accept blame. Israel is smart to condemn terrorism committed by some West Bank settlers, because the settlers have political allies and there might be some confusion about whether the government condones what they do. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church should condemn abortion clinic bombings, not because it accepts responsibility for them but become some of the more militant faithful might jump to the conclusion that when abortion is equated with murder, killing an abortion doctor is justified homicide. That is not, and never has been, the church's position, and the church ought to affirm that fact regularly. All the same, that won't prevent some sociopath from connecting the dots in his or her own insane way.
Photo of James Joyce statute in Dublin by Peter Matthews, For The Times.
Jon,
I wasn't distracted. I didn't comment on Mike's argument because I agree with him and I didn't really have anything to add, (but I will now since you graciously extended the invitation).
There are fringe elements on both the right and the left, and even beyond the fringe there are mentally unstable individuals who are drawn to politics. Also, there is the possibility of outside agitators who might attend a candidate's rallies and shout out extremist comments within earshot of the press in a deliberate attempt to discredit the candidate. A standard that requires a candidate to personally apologize for any offensive or extreme comment made by "her side" would have the effect of causing the candidate to become falsely identified with extremists in the public eye.
On the other hand, as Mike suggests, in cases where it might be reasonably inferred that the comments reflect the beliefs of the candidate's own political base, and where the comments are frequently made and well-documented, the candidate should denounce them for the reason that morally repugnant ideas need to be challenged and the candidate has the unique standing with his base to sway them away from these ideas.
Posted by: Aldo | October 11, 2008 at 07:32 AM
At some point in time people are going to realize that The Republican Party is not the Party of conservative small government and since the time of Nixon has become the party of fear.Repuiblicans embraced an ideology that fed into the backlash of the Civil Rights Era, Cultural Revolution.and opposition to the Vietnam War.Since then they have been the party of fear,Fear of gays,abortion.environmentalist/diversity,and most of all terrorism.They have to do this to keep people from realizing that Reagonomics isnt in the best interest for the majority of the population.They are chiefly the party of the elites and 1percenters.Hollywood movie stars are not elites.Morgans. Rothchilds.Bushes,Kennedys.etc are elites.Republican ideology is more exclusive than Democrats therefore they can play dirtier.Its not a question of where to draw the line.Both parties will do whatever they think will help them win.Republicans just have a lot more room to push the envelope without alienating there base.
Posted by: Aaron/Raul | October 10, 2008 at 09:38 PM
That's fine, Aldo, but what about the point of the post? I'll say the same thing to you as I said inelegantly to Mitchell -- you're being distracted by the prologue and missing the story. Mike uses the supposed "kill him" heckle as a jumping off point for a very interesting question about campaigns in general: should candidates be held responsible for how extremists might react to their rhetoric? Mike says no. There are plenty of comments on this and other recent posts that take the opposite position -- witness the one just before mine. What about you? How should campaigns draw the line between emotion and inflammation?
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 10, 2008 at 08:58 PM
Given that Obama Is more vulnerable than most nominees due to his color, coupled with the virulent emotions aroused by terrorism,adding to that the general fear of financial collaspse and lack of stabilty,saying that Obama pals around with terrorist is creating the atmosphere for violence aginst his person.Theres plenty of verifiable video of Bomb Obama Hes an Arab an other violent comments against his person.If Mc Cain wanted to question Obamas Judgement why not say he had ties to a 60's radical. The Mc Cain camp is clearly trying to convey the message that Obama has ties to Islamic Extremist playing off the rumors that hes a muslim etc.Good point about COINTEL PRO and assasination suads of the FBI against Black Militants during the 60's.This is not liberal media talking points this and comments of Rev Wright can be found in senate testimony of former CIA agents DCI's DEA and NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS
Posted by: Aaron/Raul | October 10, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Here is an interesting take on this latest viral meme, by John Leo.
Posted by: Aldo | October 10, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Well, I am pretty sure the shouter is a heckler, and that he says 'freezing'.
Palin: 'I am proud of what our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan'
Heckler: Freezing
Ha, ha, get it?
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 10, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I have to admit, when I played the video I couldn't make out what was being yelled. But then, my ears have never recovered from the years I spent in rock bands. They weren't good for my savings, either, but that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 10, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Didn't actually see your second post just, but do take a listen again, try putting the word 'treason' out of your mind. And keep in mind there are obvious hecklers in the audio.
As for the substantive point, that is worth discussing. We obviously don't want a replay of the Yugoslavia situation, which is said to have been sparked by Milosevic's 1989 speech at Kosovo Polje. But then again, I see a steady erosion of free speech in all Western countries -- in Europe and Canada by law, in the US by self-censorship.
There have been some pretty harsh things said about investment bankers these last few days, and bankers have been the targets of terrorist violence historically (at least in Europe, think Baader Meinhof). But I wouldn't want anyone to hold back on strong criticism , even caricatures and unfair criticism, in the name of wanting to avoid 'hate crime' or some such.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 10, 2008 at 09:13 AM
Okay, I missed the video. I apologize ...
Actually, I 'll apologize for missing the vid, but man I think the interpretation is wrong.
The clip you linked to, Jon, is supposed to contain someone yelling not 'kill him' (unless I am totally missing something) but according to whoever put it up, 'treason'. But I really and truly don't think
1) the person yelling is a Palin supporter, but rather a heckler and
2) they say 'treason'.
Instead, she is referring to what our troops are doing in Afghanistan. We are going into Autumn and Winter. It is mountainous and cold there. She says " I don't think that is what are men and women are doing in Afghanistan' and the clever heckler says
........
Hint: Its a weather/tempature related term. 8 letters Take a listen again.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 10, 2008 at 08:37 AM
"Given Milbank's quirkyness and anti-Republicanism (he's a regular on Keith Olberman's show), I'd say there is a good chance this entire 'story' is groundless."
what? keith oldermann is anti-republican?
Posted by: tony norton | October 10, 2008 at 07:01 AM
Wow, I really need to get more sleep -- that video doesn't support Milbank's story. Sorry, Mitchell, my bad. I still think the subject is worth discussing, though, because if there wasn't a "Kill him!" moment, the demand for an apology is even more of a trap, as Mike argues.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 10, 2008 at 04:39 AM
Mitchell, you're off base on this one.. I suspect you're not a HuffPo reader, but if you were, you'd know there is a video of the "kill him" moment. It's hard to make out what the person is shouting, but Palin clearly reacts to whatever it is, as do others in the crowd.
More important, you're quibbling with the premise rather than discussing the substance of Mike's point. Is the rhetoric coming out of the McCain-Palin camp dangerously inflammatory? Mike says no, and explores where (and how) to draw that line. IMHO, it's a really interesting subject, regardless of what happens to have been said at this rally or that one. And it applies to every candidate.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 10, 2008 at 04:29 AM
Has anyone come up with another source besides Dana Milbank for this 'story'? It is true that the secret service is investigating, but none of their people heard the remark; they are investigating solely on 'press reports'. Said reports are, as far as my quick websearch goes, based entirely on Milbank's say so.
Supposing the story has a kernel of truth, the story still morphs, grows in importance, to 'Palin ignores 'Kill Him' remark. Reading this at first, in this day and age, I thought for sure there would be video that shows her obviously ignoring this (alleged) outburst. But no, Milbank's written account, and only Milbank's written account, is the source of the progressively more hysterical blog comments.
Then comes this
"The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event," Wiley told Radar. Also unclear: whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually "kill" and "him."
Hmmm. No one's heard nothing, not even the secret service guys in Palin's entourage or the plain clothes guys in the crowd. Given Milbank's quirkyness and anti-Republicanism (he's a regular on Keith Olberman's show), I'd say there is a good chance this entire 'story' is groundless.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 10, 2008 at 12:40 AM
"Does anyone really believe McCain and Palin want their supporters to off Obama?"
Judging from a knowledge of history (cointelpro and the Black Panther Party, the utter lack of a Republican response to Katrina-torn New Orleans, etc.), yes. Yes I do.
Posted by: James | October 09, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Inciting anger and hatred by insinuating that a Presidential candidate is pals with a terrorist who wants to blow us up is NOT reasonable when addressing a crowd. crowd behavior is not like indi idual behavior. Corwds stampede, riot and get inspired by a rise in hormones and emotions to gather together for what's called, even today 'lynching.' Anyone addressing a crowd has the responsibility to not incite that crowd to violent thoughts or actions. Crowds get roused and follow Hitlers.
Sen. McCain and Gov, Palin know exactly what they're doing. Any unhappy consequence will not be 'their' fault, as you have pointed out.
Posted by: J Anne Baker | October 09, 2008 at 02:38 PM