We can do a lot of things to turn this country around. That's what this whole thing is about. That is what we are supposed to be arguing about. That is what this election is about. That is what the whole election process is about. That's what our freedom to speak, peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances is all about. But threatening that you will violently overthrow the government or that conservatives should broadly be expected to try that if they don't get what they want from the ballot box? That is not politics. That is against politics. It seeks to overrule politics by force.
Not a typical election year
-
Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:29 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Rachel, I appreciate your show and the effort you put into giving voice to reason; however, it is insane that we have to look to secondary political sources to hear discussions about political issues or in this case a reasonable voice at all. We should be able to listen to candidates discuss these issues and their own views on them. Instead they all seem more interested in rousing their base with emotional rhetoric than even bothering to persuade anyone still in the middle. More people form their opinions based on political commentators than from political candidates.
More frustrating than that is casual way that some candidates love to twist definitions. Tyranny has a definition and it is not defined by democracy that a person does not agree with. In the modern English lexicon, tyranny seems to mean anything done by a democrat. Morality is defined as that which people do not find icky. Liberty is defined as anything that republicans think is important.
It sure is a good thing that America has never adopted an official language when so many of our politicians have yet to learn English.
Just look at it in driving terms junglejim, 'D' to go forward and 'R' to go backwards.
Bravo!! I thought I was the only one that saw the problem here. TRMS was the first place I heard the acronym for "It's okay when Republicans do it" that I fear we, as a nation, have developed since Regan... teflon over our memory centers.
When Shub II snatched the election from Gore, the Republicans trampled the rights of persons who did not agree with them... Bill Maher, or anyone that didn't agree with them was labeled 'un-American.' Shrub II tore up the tradition separating church and state, and NOW Tea-Partiers are convinced it doesn't exist...
So, when the Democrats reassert their participation in the democracy, the nation must be 'snatched back'??? We tolerated, because we believe in democracy and how it works, the drek forced down our throats by Shrub II- but we worked our way back.
The Republican answer? If we don't get our way, we pull out the guns?????
Do we need re-education?? I don't like the idea of thought police, but I do insist on THOUGHT. Maybe what I mean is... thought before speaking? Or, consider the consequence?
Matt-- you are absolutely right... Tea Party is saying that they are over-taxed, when what they MEAN is they have not been able to determine where those taxes go... but, the teflon thing slides in here- because the 'bank bailout' was a Republican measure to prop up the top dogs, not to bail out the folk on the bottom.
Now, the memory of the Republican proposal, and the Republican vote to support it-- that was in part, the reason Democrats were voted in... that slides right out of the lexicon, and is replaced with Tyranny...
Since the Republican/conservative? wing of the congress HAS effectively stopped measures the Democrats are proposing, where is this 'lack of participation' in the government they are screaming about???
Pick up an Oxford English Dictionary... or even Webster's. Poof, sanity restored!
no, that's their definition of socialism, i think, not tyranny. that is, they want their (exclusively) country back, except that the majority has 'taken it away from them' because it's actually our country, and what is it where everybody owns a thing? socialism!
I heard the candidate urging action not violence. I didn't hear him comparing America to Nazi Germany but those walking to their death doing nothing like Americans not active in the process to affect change.
Let's imagine a very extreme Right came in to great power here and began doing the following:
1. All illegal immigrants AND those who have become citizens in the last 20 years are returned to their country of origin and stripped of their US citizenship.
2. Only those voting for NRA endorsed candidates could bear arms.
3. Homosexuality is outlawed and violators publicly stoned.
4. Everyone has to make a profession of faith and regularly attend religious services.
And on from there...would you not say an overthrow of government was in order and appropriate (I would and I'm a conservative!)?
Can you clarify your post for me by answering two questions?
1. Which current situations mirror the four points you posited?
2. The overthrow of government that you mention - would that be by the ballot box or 'by First Amendment remedies'?
[full disclosure: I fervently believe that we do NOT need First Amendment remedies to 'overthrow' the government. In a democratic country such as we all hope America is, decisions can and should be made by voting, AND the losing candidates SHOULD live by the electorate's decision until the next round. In the meantime, it would be to the entire country's advantage if those chosen would govern intelligently and with integrity, whether in opposition or not.
Don't you mean Second Amendment remedies?
I'm not saying there is any current situation that mirror my fictional scenario. What I proposed though was a scenario that no longer resembled our democracy or the rights found in our constitution. There could come a time when votes mean nothing.
I agree, currently...even as combative as some issues can be...you live by the vote and work harder to make the changes next election or within the structure of our Constitution to make the changes you desire. And, I don't forsee that changing.
I'm just saying that if this country moved to a dictatorship or a socialist nation, then votes would do no good...would they?
And yes, I'm sure he meant 2nd Amendment unless he wanted us to get together, write an article, pray, and file a petition against the government.
It's a 3 part process.
1) Lay the groundwork for a violent overthrow, or even a civil overthrow, by establishing a definite line by which you judge that such an action is correct. Rely on like minded followers to support such a logical perspective.
2) Redefine the actions of your opposition to fulfill the standard set above. Change tyranny to represent any action that you don't agree with. Redefinition is a powerful rhetorical tool. I know it sounds almost silly, doesn't it? The power that someone can wield by simply changing a few definitions is almost unreasonable. Words have a foundation in the emotions of everyone within any society. Changing the definitions doesn't erase the emotions connected to the words, it only allows people to tap into those emotions and use them for their own agenda.
3) Link the two above steps and then set your followers on a logical movement.
It's a dangerous process and people like the man in the video rely on the assumption that the American people will never actually go along with the insanity that they're speaking. The moment a few decide to carry through on such violent rhetoric, he'll try to separate himself from the situation immediately and pray for their souls while chanting for peace.
I understand the process you propose but it is based on the ability of a person or a movement to literally brainwash others, I'm not sure that scale of action is possible.
This is a powerful tool and used by those with noble motives and those without. As to,
I can't speak to what he would do or not but neither could I argue your assertion would not be true.
Couldn't you make the same type argument you are making in reverse? Once we vow to take "overthrowing the government" by civil or violence means off the table it would open up for just the type of abuse you describe from the other side of the equation, a government with no need to respect the wishes of its citizenry?
Thank you both for the correction, I did mean '2nd amendment remedies'. I was trying to remember a Sharron Angle quotation. As you all see, I'm not too familiar with the amendments, which is one reason I don't want Christine McD to be me if she gets to go to Washington.
It requires far less brainwashing than you may realize. Here's a few phrases that may sound familiar.
1) Axis of Evil
2) Democrats are socialists
3) Tyranny of the left
4) Democrats are communists
There's plenty more but this is a good start. The right has redefined all of these definitions or in the case of the first one redefined the nature of a geographic region.
Now I can understand your desire to defend the reverend's statement but no, not a chance. Removing violent overthrows of the government from the table doesn't open our country up to a complete disregard of the people. That's an ideological argument that hasn't been correct in generations. The reality is that most politicians disregard the people already and what keeps them from a complete disregard is a forced adherence to our democratic election system.
The reality of a government overthrow today involves weapons that no private citizen can own. Rifles and pistols give the illusion of security but aren't going to provide any real defense against a government in power. It a government were ever so corrupt as to warrant an overthrow, the measures that they'd be willing to use to protect their status would leave our country unlivable. This just isn't the 19th century anymore.
Matt, I guess you are right. Here are a few others to add to your list:
1. Conservatives want control over your body.
2. The Right will send in bedroom police.
3. Republicans want to starve Grandma.
4. Fundamentalist will not stop until we have a theocracy.
And yea, you are probably right about this not being the 19th century, I'm sure there were NO coup detats in the 20th century so surely there will be none in the 21st.
Jungle, I adore the copy and pasted classic right response accusing us of not thinking for ourselves. I'm not sure if your goal was irony, but if it was then you have hit your mark brilliantly.
RobDon, I wouldn't suggest that the right are the only ones to engage in this sort of redefinition but I try to avoid such overarching slurs. You have demonstrated my original point though, that both sides would be better served by honest discourse as long as the fundamental ideals of both sides are rooted in real thought.
Agreed. I could even tolerate the fundamentalist from both sides as long as they would listen more than they would talk.
PS. I missed your meaning with "I try to avoid such overarching slurs." Maybe I'm slow.
So now that politics in America has been reduced to the level of really bad reality T.V., let me add my two cents. The Texas (conservative state) Rangers are going to the world series (congrats) and will play either the Phillies or the Giants (two liberal states). Which ever team wins should take over both houses of congress and be guaranteed the White House in 2012. With all the inane nonsense being spouted as real political discourse in this country, I believe my idea is as legitimate as any other. In fact, if we use my idea, maybe we can put an end to all the race baiting and calls to violence rhetoric.
Good Luck on MTP on sunday. Steele gonna need it ;)
At first, I thought, well that's Texas for you. I lived there my entire life until July of this year. What I didn't realize is that this is the Republican candidate for my district. I immediately called my parents to find out if they watched the segment on WFAA and if they had voted already.
The problem is that the Democratic candidate for my district, who has been in office for many years, was recently caught up in a scholarship scandal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/eddie-bernice-johnson-scholarships-black-caucus_n_699874.html). While I haven't seen much about this in national news, this story has apparently been big on our local new stations. So, unfortunately, the Republican candidate might actually have a chance this year.
In this country we ARE innocent until proved guilty. Beside, every week we here something scandalous about an American official no matter what side their on. Republicans vote: YES to outsourcing American jobs. YES on racial profiling. NO on you and your family having gov run healthcare, but they all have gov run healthcare. NO to education(close all public school/colleges). NO to making BP pay up. NO to women's rights. NO to saving American Jobs. NO to stopping wallstreet. LEAN FOWARD >>>>> VOTE DEMOCRAT
Interesting comments. I said "unfortunately" because I really like Eddie Bernice Johnson and want her to keep her seat. People I have spoken with in my town have been upset by the scandal and want her, as they would any other government official regardless of their party, to be held accountable for what she did. According the Huffington Post article I linked to, it looks like she is trying to correct her mistakes, though it doesn't seem that everyone, at least in my town, has heard about that. Hopefully, this scholarship mistake won't hurt her chances of remaining in office.
I was just surprised by the video clips because all of the odd things happening in politics that have been covered on TRMS recently seem so far away from my little town.
There are often times when I want to talk back to the show, maybe because Rachel is so conversational, but nothing has driven me to it like this. I think two things:
No. 1 for someone who is tending to a cynical extreme, overthrow is become a more and more palatable option--by any means possible. The system as it stands no longer largely represents the good of the public. That's a problem. If it's politically solvable, great, but if the system is too broken for that, what option is left? Should we all just continue being apathetic consumer sheep going along with the placating lines the government is feeding us just to maintain their own piece of power? While the guy is extreme and his metaphor is ludicrous, I believe that the power of the public in any democracy lies in their right to revolt if the parties in power are no longer representative. The threat of removal or overhaul has to always be on the table in order for people elected to power to value the stance of their constituents.
No. 2 I think that the Right should be particularly careful of fomenting violent revolt because their tea party homo-xeno-phobic agenda is not being pushed through. I think they (and perhaps even you, Rachel) would be surprised to find out how many people on the left also believe that the system is broken and we can do better (and who would even buy guns), but for those of us on this side of the line the new political order is going to be FAR less palatable to those uber conservatives. There are thoughtful, normal adults who would take liberal policies in a more European bent, that would incorporate aspects of socialist policies because socialism (everyone deserves a fair slice of the pie) is NOT A BAD WORD. I'm a normal (not crazy or cooky) liberal person living in NYC, getting a PhD in social analysis, and I think that some Marxist policies would be better than the elitist policies presently in effect. I think that Capitalism is the true power in this country, a capitalism that has developed into financialism and has put the REAL power of the government into the hands of those folks who can BUY politicians.
The moral of the story is that MAYBE it's time for a revolution, or close to it, but you can BY NO MEANS say that the only folks interested in such a turn over are going to be NRA members pushing for a shut down of all sexual, reproductive, and religious rights. There are other civically conscious people who would support a revolution that would take this country in a completely progressive and socially leveling direction. The cold war is over, and it's time for people to stop pitting themselves ideologically against progressive "*-ist" ideas that can more effectively implement social equality and ensure the populace's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Wake up, people, democracy in the hands of politicians who can be bought is a DANGEROUS thing that is only going to favor the rich and entrench and widen the gap between the rich and the poor until we are left with a bourgeois and a proletariat and we HAVE to have a violent revolution to take power from the wealthy.
I think that there are two things that folks should be aware of on this particular topic.
No. 1: The man is NOT entirely wrong about the need for revolution to be on the table. If the populace does not maintain the ability to revoke the power of those the PUBLIC has invested with the power of representation, then there is no popular force to elected government. If politicians do not fear for their jobs, and even the system that gives them power, then they are subject to any other means of persuasion that will allow them to maintain power or become rich, i.e. they'll accept bribes, they'll get lobbied by folks who contribute to campaigns, they'll vote down things that are good for the country and/or its people in order to maintain their cash flow from large corporations...etc. (I think we all know where this goes). SO it is essentially necessary that the populace live with the knowledge and intent of revolution if the few become tyrranical (and yes, Matt is correct, tyranny is not just when something doesn't go your way) and say the wealthy, because of their ability to buy politicians, are able to implement policies and procedures that rape the environment, exploit workers, and drive our economy into the ground, it's valid for people to being thinking about ALL their options to stop those IN power, even if it's not exactly palatable. Let's not pretend that we in the 21st century are above war...
No. 2: I think the conservative right ought to be more careful about fomenting revolutionary feelings with their inflammatory rhetoric. I think that they (and maybe even you, Rachel) might be surprised to find out how many others would be willing to fight (and buy guns) if such a revolutionary moment came to pass. Though those folks would not be homo-zeno-phobic NRA members but progressive, liberal-leaning socialists and Marxists who legitimately believe that the inequality in this country is driven by class difference and that the best way to eliminate social inequity and capitalist atrocity is to ABOLISH THE FREE MARKET (there's a phrase to scare republicans for you). I'm not a kook, or some crazy conspiracy theorist. I'm a liberal intellectual living in NYC and working on a PhD in social and cultural analysis. And I think that the policies of the existing powers are sometimes so bad as to even be CRIMINAL. I don't believe the system is working, but I continue to hold out hope that it can be reformed instead of revolutionized. If push comes to shove, however, I'll buy a weapon and fight for a revolutionary movement to depose the power of the ALMIGHTY BUCK, and I'm not alone.
Even though the guy seems crazy, I pretty sure that he was referring to Meshak, Shaderak and Abendego who were thrown in the fiery furnace by King Nebekenezer in the OT Bible story, and not the fate of the Jews under Nazi rule during WW2.
The various campaigns are such a circus act (right and left wing and "Tea") because no one in their right (read proper) mind and actually qualified to lead, wants to get into this political circus! Can you blame them?
As I've mentioned before, one of, if not the Main cause for our national predicament, is our collective spiritual ignorance. If "Jesus" came back today, and said anything of needed substance, he's be ridiculed by Fox, and run out of town by the GOP, or strung up by the T party geniuses.
We have forgotten what we should stand for...a clean and safe world for ALL of us, not just the few powerful rich, who have become so isolated, they think Glen Beck will lead them to the promised land...parting the Red Sea to storm Mecca....I'd sell tickets to see that!
Unfortunately, that's what a lot of poorly educated individuals who watch the fox will pay to do, thus we have the abysmal number of television commercials from all sides yelling at each other, and hating "the other side" refusing to be adults, and tell us what they would do about real problems....so we'll elect student teachers to run our political science classes, and not Professors.
And all this verbal noise coming from the TV masks the conversation we should be having about cutting the Military budget before we can no longer afford food; curtail the pesticides and chemicals in air and soil that's killing the Bee population of the world, and thus the food supply itself; Find a way to cease burning Petroleum,before we actually melt Antarctica and Greenland; Drown the last Polar Bear in an ice-free Arctic Ocean; Allow the Japanese and company to finish off the Blue Whale and Dolphin; End the "clean Coal" commercials, and other politically inspired fantasys that have us all trapped inside our television sets and video games, because we've all given up....so we argue with each other about trivial things...to keep from dealing with the dangerous Elephant in the room...
Check out Thursday night's LAST WORD with Lawrence O' Donnell . The panel that O'Donnell and Esquire magazine came up with a way to balance the budget by 2020 and cut US budget by 391 billion dollars (roughly half) and made the military STRONGER as a result. http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/
The article on the balance the budget by 202 is here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/balance-federal-budget-101310
Isn't this known as treason?
Actually, no. "Treason against the United States," says the Constitution, "shall consist only in levying war war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Now, if Sharon Angle loses to Harry Reid and she then retreats to the mountains with a band of followers and starts waging a guerrilla war against the United States, then it's treason. Just shooting your face off about rebellion does not come under the Constitution's definition of treason and is protected, with exceptions, by the First Amendment (see Brandenburg v. Ohio). In a way it's a pity that you need open warfare for treason to come into play, but I suppose it's reasonable to distinguish talking about harming the nation from actually harming the nation in concert with foreign (apparently) enemies.
Actually Brandenburg V Ohio is valid here, as there is a portion of the ruling that held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite immanent lawless action, which is exactly what we have here. I do agree, it's not treason [yet]
Which is what I was vaguely alluding to when I mentioned 'exceptions'. I considered making that explicit but decided against it figuring people could look up the ruling for themselves; but now I see it makes it seem as if I were excepting the Brandenburg decision. That was careless.
But are you saying that Angle and the other far-right politicians who are recklessly talking about violent insurrection if they don't win their elections are inciting immanent action? If so, I'm not sure that I see it. They seem to be more talk than action, at least for now.
Dear Rachel,
I want to ask if you would please do a story on the U.S. Representative race in MO 2nd District between incumbent congressman Todd Akin and Democratic challenger Arthur Lieber. I would like for you to study why Todd Akin is refusing to publicly debate his challenger...There was just a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters and all the candidates appeared...but not Todd Akin...there was an empty seat left out for him!
Someone asked a very interesting question: As a duty of his position, should Akin be required to appear to answer questions posed by his constituents and also attendees of the debate?
What is afraid of? What does he have to hide? That is what I wish you could find out!
Thanks,
Kurt Neumann
Can't believe what is happening in our elections this year. I am 70 years old and never remember anything like this. With all these crazies running ,people who have listened to Fox 24/7, and unlimited money flowing into campaigns, how can we have an honest election?
If this was the only reason for me to be ashamed I am a Texan that would be one thing but unfortunately this is not new for us. From "Guvner Good Hair" on down Texas has more than its share of idiots. Our only defense is that maybe it is because the state is so big.
Don't give up on the state completely. There's still some left in the state who are going to surprise you and when they're old enough to run for office, the state won't know what hit it.
I'm only half joking with that. It seems like every political issue in the south has an average age gap of 30 years between the two sides and it's the younger generation that seems more clear headed. Someday they'll go a long way towards bettering this state as long as they can avoid selling out their ideals by the time they're ready to lead this state.
Rachel was explaining how the Repub are using Nancy P. and President to associate every candidate with them at a national level. I think she should have use her program to recommend to the democrats to associate every republican candidate with the most crazy tea baggers at a national level. That would be an excellent strategy!
Remember prior to the 2008 election, there were numerous stories about how white people were afraid that blacks might riot if Obama lost? Of course, since Obama won, we will never know just how overblown those stories were. Now in 2010, we multiple right wing kooks proclaiming that armed uprising is always an option -- and what is the resulting media coverage? This chilling speech is either ignored, laughed off as the rants of a loony, or held up as an example of someone who finally "gets it".
Is there any question what the reaction would have been if Al Sharpton had suggested in 2008 that African-Americans should stock up on ammo in case Obama was not elected? Swift condemnation would have rained down from the left and right. It is time for the responsible adults in today's political arena to treat these comments the same way.
Wingnuts come in all colors, shapes, and sizes, and they ALL belong to the republican party......
I have to disagree. There are New Age, denialist left-wingers out there.
Say more about that, MechTrek? Just curious what sort of wingnuts you refer to here.
All the antivaxxers at HuffPo, for starters. Unless they've cleaned up their scientific standards from when I stopped reading there.
@MechTrek, I am not a fan of HuffPo, I understand your point.
@jj, your posts are tiresome, without verifiable facts or interesting opinions, and are not addign substance or value to the general discourse on this blog
No. It is not better. Base your posts on verifiable facts, or offer opinions that add value or present an alternate viewpoint, then you will be on track. Otherwise, responsible participants in this online community will simply block your posts.
Hey, mightbealiberal...here are...
Alvin Greene verifiable facts
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/make-toys-of-me-for-the-holidays-alvin-greene-in-his-own-words.php
Nancy Pelosi verifiable facts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdAj8zui6ss&feature=related
Richard Blumenthal's verifiable facts
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/68997/
Obama's 57 states verifiable facts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&feature=player_embedded
We Americans & our country stand at the cross roads of time, how we vote would detrmine our destiny in a fast changing world.
Axis of power are shifting. America no longer has the prestige, credibility or clout ( thanks to the policies during the Bush-Cheney era of infamy) it once enjoyed. Our long term allies in the M.East & Latin America our moving out of our spheres.
The Iraq war & Afghanistan ill concieved misadventures have done irreparable damage to our geo political interests in a region vital for us. Financial & economic impacts aside.
New alliances are taking shape, not necessarily to our advantage- China, India, Russia, Iran.
Our lopsided policy on Israel-Arab- Iran situation may drag us yet into another quagmire of military conflict we can ill afford.
Do we elect the same mind set which got us to this point and embrace bigotry, hate, racism, religious extremism & intolerance. Isolate ourselves from rest of the world. Leave a legacy of wars, perpetual violence & hatred for America for our coming generations?
Or do we opt for a saner climate seeking peace & co-existence with the billions others who inhabit this planet and let our children & grand children inherit a better world?
We have to think hard & long before we cast our vote.
Great job! I especially liked the comment regarding Christine O'Donnel's snow on FOX being "Aaawsome". Probably true - very scarey - and definately an inspiration for a new Halloween costume..........
within the first 30 seconds of the clip of this crap, where he's talking about the passivity of the Jews during the Holocaust -- i sincerely doubt that they weren't aware, per his claim, but that a) there was nothing they could do as resistence would've just seen one shot and killed those few minutes earlier, and b) they weren't in physical condition to make any sort of significant resistence, even en masse -- it had struck me: wasn't Jesus similiarly 'passive' regarding his fate, also?
And dont forget "Mission accomplished" junglejim...
If you had done your homework junglejim you would have seen that every dollar in food stamps returns $1.73 into the enconomy. Pelosi was right, food stamps and unemployment checks are best for stimulating the economy especially at these times. Apparently your one of those, 'Ive got mine so the heck with everyone else' conservatives. Stop prostituting yourself for the fox news disinformation machine.
Can any body answer the question of which presidential administration placed the income tax on unemployment benefits?
Hint: David Stockman