Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Did Right-Wing Shock Jocks Motivate Knoxville Killer? | PEEK | AlterNet
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 7:00 AM on July 29, 2008.
When police searched the car of the gunman who opened fire in a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, they found a 4-page letter expressing his hatred of the "liberal movement." A regular consumer of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, Jim David Adkisson was only following the arguments they make day in and day out to their logical conclusions.
From the Knoxville News Sentinel:
Conservatism used to be an ideology -- conservatives believed in getting government off of people's backs, they believed in fiscal restraint and small central government, they believed we should have a humble foreign policy focused on watching out for ourselves and not trying to rule the world and they detested experiments in social engineering.
In the post-World War II era, it was a widely-loathed ideology and liberalism was dominant. Democrats were proud liberals who wanted to build a more just society and most Republicans were liberals who believed we should do so much more gradually and carefully than their opponents.
Beginning in the middle of the last century, conservatives abandoned any semblance of ideological coherence -- when in power, they spend more on pet projects than liberals, are more interventionist in their foreign policy than their liberal counterparts and are all-too-happy to meddle in the most private affairs of the citizenry (think: opposition to birth control; Terri Schiavo). Conservatism gave way to "backlash" conservatism, which is, in practice, little more than an ideology of resentment. Thomas Frank, in a less tragic context, coined the phrase "conservative plenty-plaint" to describe it -- a list of grievances, great and small, that are all somehow attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the supposed evils of liberalism.
It was a strategic choice, one that may be attributed to Joe McCarthy or Spiro Agnew or Richard Nixon, and it has consequences. As villifying the left became incredibly lucrative -- Rush Limbaugh has a contract worth $400 million, Ann Coulter makes a fortune on her pabulum -- the competition became fierce, and the charges against liberalism went further and further over the top.
David Neiwert calls it "eliminationist" rhetoric -- putting forth the idea that one's opponents are not simply in disagreement, do not simply have a different and competing political philosophy, do not just believe that their approach to solving problems is superior but are bent on destroying the country, the culture, even the family unit from within. And, more importantly, that they must be destroyed or exiled.
Consider the narratives we hear so frequently, from right-wing talk radio, to the right-blogs to Fox News. Liberals are traitors. Liberals hate the troops, stab them in the back, hate America. They are "anti-family", they hate God. They want America to be destroyed by its enemies, whether Soviet shock troops or "Islamofascist" terrorists.
I'm not denying for a second that progressives and liberals are filled with anumus towards the right, but it is an animus of a different nature. Most progressives believe that conservative leaders are greedy, self-interested and represent only the interests of the very wealthy, and their followers are simply chumps dazzled by social issues into voting against their own interests. We don't consider them to be bent on the destruction of our country (even if some of us believe that is the likely outcome of their governance).
The difference manifests itself, not infrequently, in incidents like what went down in Tennessee. It's certainly not isolated -- just last week, a group of teens beat a Latino migrant to death. And why not? People like Michelle Malkin don't make arguments about the costs and benefits of immigration; they paint a picture of an invading army bent on our destruction. They say that illegal immigration is part of a plot to "reconquer" parts of America -- literally to annex the SouthWest. Abortion clinics are bombed, and providers are assassinated, and the bombers and assassins inevitably see the procedure as "killing babies" -- who wouldn't act to stop actual babies from being killed?
When people view themselves as facing an existential threat to their nation, to their very way of life, they defend themselves -- it's a natural reaction. It appears that Jim David Adkisson, unemployed, no doubt mentally disturbed, believed he was taking action to defend his country, his community. He did it because of "his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." A picture-perfect summary of the back-lash conservative message. It was a predictable consequence of the constant cries of DolchStoß from the backlash right.
Of course, when one points this out one is immediately derided as an enemy of free speech, even if one never even suggests that this kind of speech should be regulated in any way. The hate-peddlers use "free speech" as a shield from criticism, as if it means the freedom to not have one's speech examined or condemned.
I'm not advocating censorship here, but at the same time, I think it's important to note that inciting people to violence is not a protected form of speech. In Rwanda, the genocide of 800,000 people was spurred on by extremists on the radio -- Rwanda's Shock-Jocks -- who said that it was every loyal Hutu's duty to wipe out the "cockroaches" who were destroying the country, and that speech was condemned as a crime against humanity.
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 7:00 AM on July 29, 2008.
Hateful talk about one's enemies undermining the nation leads to hateful acts in response.
When police searched the car of the gunman who opened fire in a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, they found a 4-page letter expressing his hatred of the "liberal movement." A regular consumer of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, Jim David Adkisson was only following the arguments they make day in and day out to their logical conclusions.
From the Knoxville News Sentinel:
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Adkisson targeted the church ... "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson [said] that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
Adkisson said he also was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job, Owen said.
Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs, rather than a particular member of the congregation.
"It appears that church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance," the chief said. The church has a "gays welcome" sign and regularly runs announcements in the News Sentinel about meetings of the Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays meetings at the church.
Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church.
The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Adkisson targeted the church ... "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson [said] that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
Adkisson said he also was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job, Owen said.
Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs, rather than a particular member of the congregation.
"It appears that church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance," the chief said. The church has a "gays welcome" sign and regularly runs announcements in the News Sentinel about meetings of the Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays meetings at the church.
Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church.
The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.
Conservatism used to be an ideology -- conservatives believed in getting government off of people's backs, they believed in fiscal restraint and small central government, they believed we should have a humble foreign policy focused on watching out for ourselves and not trying to rule the world and they detested experiments in social engineering.
In the post-World War II era, it was a widely-loathed ideology and liberalism was dominant. Democrats were proud liberals who wanted to build a more just society and most Republicans were liberals who believed we should do so much more gradually and carefully than their opponents.
Beginning in the middle of the last century, conservatives abandoned any semblance of ideological coherence -- when in power, they spend more on pet projects than liberals, are more interventionist in their foreign policy than their liberal counterparts and are all-too-happy to meddle in the most private affairs of the citizenry (think: opposition to birth control; Terri Schiavo). Conservatism gave way to "backlash" conservatism, which is, in practice, little more than an ideology of resentment. Thomas Frank, in a less tragic context, coined the phrase "conservative plenty-plaint" to describe it -- a list of grievances, great and small, that are all somehow attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the supposed evils of liberalism.
It was a strategic choice, one that may be attributed to Joe McCarthy or Spiro Agnew or Richard Nixon, and it has consequences. As villifying the left became incredibly lucrative -- Rush Limbaugh has a contract worth $400 million, Ann Coulter makes a fortune on her pabulum -- the competition became fierce, and the charges against liberalism went further and further over the top.
David Neiwert calls it "eliminationist" rhetoric -- putting forth the idea that one's opponents are not simply in disagreement, do not simply have a different and competing political philosophy, do not just believe that their approach to solving problems is superior but are bent on destroying the country, the culture, even the family unit from within. And, more importantly, that they must be destroyed or exiled.
Consider the narratives we hear so frequently, from right-wing talk radio, to the right-blogs to Fox News. Liberals are traitors. Liberals hate the troops, stab them in the back, hate America. They are "anti-family", they hate God. They want America to be destroyed by its enemies, whether Soviet shock troops or "Islamofascist" terrorists.
I'm not denying for a second that progressives and liberals are filled with anumus towards the right, but it is an animus of a different nature. Most progressives believe that conservative leaders are greedy, self-interested and represent only the interests of the very wealthy, and their followers are simply chumps dazzled by social issues into voting against their own interests. We don't consider them to be bent on the destruction of our country (even if some of us believe that is the likely outcome of their governance).
The difference manifests itself, not infrequently, in incidents like what went down in Tennessee. It's certainly not isolated -- just last week, a group of teens beat a Latino migrant to death. And why not? People like Michelle Malkin don't make arguments about the costs and benefits of immigration; they paint a picture of an invading army bent on our destruction. They say that illegal immigration is part of a plot to "reconquer" parts of America -- literally to annex the SouthWest. Abortion clinics are bombed, and providers are assassinated, and the bombers and assassins inevitably see the procedure as "killing babies" -- who wouldn't act to stop actual babies from being killed?
When people view themselves as facing an existential threat to their nation, to their very way of life, they defend themselves -- it's a natural reaction. It appears that Jim David Adkisson, unemployed, no doubt mentally disturbed, believed he was taking action to defend his country, his community. He did it because of "his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." A picture-perfect summary of the back-lash conservative message. It was a predictable consequence of the constant cries of DolchStoß from the backlash right.
Of course, when one points this out one is immediately derided as an enemy of free speech, even if one never even suggests that this kind of speech should be regulated in any way. The hate-peddlers use "free speech" as a shield from criticism, as if it means the freedom to not have one's speech examined or condemned.
I'm not advocating censorship here, but at the same time, I think it's important to note that inciting people to violence is not a protected form of speech. In Rwanda, the genocide of 800,000 people was spurred on by extremists on the radio -- Rwanda's Shock-Jocks -- who said that it was every loyal Hutu's duty to wipe out the "cockroaches" who were destroying the country, and that speech was condemned as a crime against humanity.
