Vitriolic Discourse Not at Unprecedented Level

As I frequently assert here in my postings involving the MSM ("mainstream media"), the media love to distract us from the real issues.  Along with its current drumbeat of blaming the rightwing pundits for the recent tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, one issue alarmists and Leftists are raising is reducing "vitriolic rhetoric", perhaps at the expense of restricting free speech.

The Left and its bloodhound the MSM are spreading the propaganda that this hateful speech is at unprecedented levels, with public figures such as Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County waxing nostalgic about the good old days and how such violence and hate speech did not exist at today's flood levels.  As Dupnik spoke of his 75 some years of life on this planet, I wondered if he was raised in a separate dimension or an isolated Amish community?  Now, I've only lived on this planet 50 years, but my memories are quite different from his ... and I don't even work in law enforcement such as he.

Those who claim today's hateful speech is something new and unprecedented are either suffering amnesia or have never read a history book ... or lived life, for that matter.  I believe they are falling into the same old trap of people always viewing the past through rose-colored glasses, much like the nasty grandfather who finally kicks the bucket, but then suddenly family start reminiscing fondly about his life, burying any memories and remarks of grandpa's drinking and wife beating.

Today, columnists around the country are addressing this notion and providing little history lessons for the public.  Richard Benedetto, writing for FoxNews, is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist who currently teaches journalism and politics at American and Georgetown universities.  He provides us with a brief overview of past heated, contentious times in our nation (emphasis added): 

A History Lesson in Political Rhetoric

...

Those who now say our harsh political rhetoric is something new and generated mostly by an angry political right would do well to take a look at our history. They would find that political debate in some of the most vitriolic terms -- “vitriol” seems to be the word of choice these days -- has been with us and our press since the days when the American colonies began to protest British rule. Icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, bitter political rivals, were not above the fray.

Eric Burns, in his 2006 book “Infamous Scribblers,” which recounts the “rowdy beginnings” of American journalism, says early newspapers were more weapons of political war than they were impartial chroniclers of daily events.

“The golden age of America’s founding was also the gutter age of American reporting,” he wrote. “The Declaration of Independence was literature. The New England Courant talked trash. The Constitution of the United States was philosophy; the Boston Gazette slung mud, Philadelphia’s Aurora was less a celestial presence than a ground-level reek.”

In those days, journalists such as the fiery Samuel Adams preached violence, not civility, against those in government control, in that case the British.

We heard and read similar vitriolic rhetoric through such crusades as the fight to abolish slavery, the battle for women’s suffrage, the 20th century push for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights and efforts to end the Vietnam War.  Driving all of those causes was the right to free speech. To be sure, there were many who tried to quiet those voices, including large segments of the mainstream media that were late to join those causes. Now, they want to silence those they don’t agree with again.

Thanks to the Internet, and the easy ability of anyone with access to a computer or smartphone to express their opinions -- misguided or logical -- adds to the volume and intensity of political debate. That disturbs many people. But to say that we somehow need to shut it down or restrict it ignores our nation’s time-honored tradition of freedom of expression, which might have its drawbacks and downsides, but in the end, makes us stronger.

Political cartoons from Lincoln's era.

These days bring to mind how shocked I was while viewing an exhibit at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois.  (I highly recommend visiting!  It's awesome!!!)  As we walked down a hallway and entered another part of the exhibit, the walls were plastered with enlarged copies of numerous political cartoons from Lincoln's day.  I was amazed at how mean and nasty the slams were against President Lincoln.  (I've added various copies of them throughout this post  from Google Images.)  The "vitriole" of those days as Lincoln was attacked for abolition and the Civil War was tremendous. 

Thanks to Jim Hoft of GatewayPundit, I learned that The Hill today is reporting on a poll that says the public is not buying the MSM's attempts to brainwash people with their latest "viotriolic rhetoric must be abolished" propaganda:

Almost 60 percent of the public believes that heated political rhetoric has nothing to do with an Arizona shooting spree that gravely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and killed a federal judge. 

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in a new CBS News poll said rhetoric is unrelated to the shooting, while 32 percent said they believe the two are connected.

Since the shooting on Saturday, conservatives and liberals squabbled over whether political rhetoric influenced Loughner.

Republicans who responded to the poll do not believe the shooting was related to rhetoric at a greater rate than Democrats. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans said rhetoric was not a factor, compared to 19 percent who said it was connected. 

A narrow plurality of Democrats believe there is no relationship — 49 percent to 42. Fifty-six percent of independents believe rhetoric is unrelated to the shooting, and 33 percent think it was. [source]

Be wary, my friends.  Be wary, skeptical, methodical and discerning.  Always check the voices and sources that speak to the public.  Always give a huge event several days to play out before forming an opinion.