Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Poll Results Reveal Depths of Right-Wing Delusion
By: Hrafnkell HaraldssonJan. 17th, 2011more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
A new poll released by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College and IPFW’s National Civility September Survey, asks a question that is more meaningful than ever in the wake of the attempted assassination of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, “Who is at fault for incivility?”
The answers themselves are not a great surprise: “Affiliates of both major parties simply blame the other side for incivility, while independents point at both parties.”
| Who? | Democrats | Independents | Republicans |
| Radio talk shows | 12% | 7% | 4% |
| Television news programs | 17% | 18% | 13% |
| Conservative TV commentators | 34% | 11% | 3% |
| Liberal TV commentators | 3% | 13% | 30% |
| Political parties | 17% | 31% | 26% |
This Allegheny/IPFW (Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne) study shows that people are increasingly concerned by incivility in political discourse.
Michael Wolf, associate professor of political science at IPFW writes in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette that their first civility survey “immediately after the vote on health care reform in March 2010″ revealed that “48 percent of the public believed politics had become less civil since President Obama took office.” The assumption made at the time that this would prove a high-water mark was quickly disproved. Their September survey (shown above) showed that 58 percent of the public said “politics were less civil.” By November, that number was up to 63 percent.
Wolf observes that it is difficult to tell the Tea Partiers apart from the Republicans since “most tea party identifiers in our surveys were also Republicans” and that “we find no significant difference on their views.”
Another fact that comes as no surprise to liberals.
The poll also revealed that Democrats “are more likely to read papers and Republicans are more apt to get news from radio.” Both groups, however, “are most likely to get their news from television or the Internet, which are the very sources that can be the most partial to one party.”
| News Source | Democats | Independents | Republicans |
| Television | 52% | 46% | 52% |
| Internet | 20% | 24% | 25% |
| Papers | 20% | 14% | 8% |
| Radio | 7% | 8% | 12% |
But here is an interesting fact, one that also reinforces what we already knew: “Compromise was preferred by 74 percent of Democrats, whereas 73 percent of Republicans preferred politicians to stand firm.”
One thing everyone agrees upon: all this civility (87 percent of Democrats and 72% of Republicans) is bad for democracy.
Of course, time is found to lay the blame equally. Wolf argues that
The parties continue to purify themselves ideologically through primary elections. Moderates from both parties have struggled in primary elections in recent years against ideological challengers, leaving even fewer in Congress willing to compromise.
While I would argue that there is an element of truth in this, it is far more applicable to Republican than to Democratic politics. You can still find moderates in the Democratic party; you’ll be hard pressed naming one in today’s Republican ranks.
And which party adopted purity standards? It wasn’t the Democrats. The Republican purity push was spearheaded by a Hoosier (not one of Hoosierdom’s high points), James Bopp Jr., an RNC member I’ve previously discussed here, who called his test “Reagan’s unity principle for support of candidates.”
The problem is, Reagan would not have passed it. Newsweek put it best: Even Reagan wasn’t a Reagan Republican.
Dan Milbank, who considers Lisa Murkowski a “faithful conservative” wrote an op-ed piece about this for the Washington Post in October, observing:
Comparing the ACU ratings of Murkowski and Bennett with those of other Republicans in the House and Senate going back to 1971 (the first year in the ACU online ratings archive), I discovered that if conservatives were to employ the purity standards they applied to Murkowski and Bennett, they would have rejected many, if not most, of the leading Republican lawmakers of the past 40 years.
Lisa Murkowski (R-AL): 70.2 percent in 2010
Gerald Ford? In 1973 his ACU rating was just 67 percent. He would not even be considered a Republican today.
If you want an example of ideological purity, you need look no further than the GOP. As a USA Today editorial put it in reference to healthcare reform:
The health care divide is the most vivid example so far of how ideological purity police in both parties, but particularly the GOP, are making it harder to address the nation’s most intractable problems.
The keyword being “particularly” the GOP.
So here we have a party that deifies Reagan yet would not consider him a Republican were he active today; a party that demands purity standards of its members; has chased out all its moderates and not only disagrees with but demonizes any opposition to those purity standards; engages in violent anti-government rhetoric including calls for “Second Amendment” remedies, secession and revolution; and a mainstream media which insists on claiming both parties are part of the problem. I should change the title of this piece: it’s not just the right-wing that’s delusional but the right-leaning mainstream media as well.
I can’t end this without pointing to the poll one more time: I find interesting the blame Republicans place on “liberal TV commentators.” I would like to know who these commentators are. Are there networks I am unaware of, that appear only on Republican televisions? It is not like Democrats have a FOX News of their own. MSNBC is not at all comparable. The entire MSM is right-leaning, making it even more difficult to find a left-leaning commentator. With the exception of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, it is difficult to find a “liberal TV commentator” and while Olbermann tends towards bombast, he is out of his league when compared with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and others in the right-wing stratosphere.
There is simply no comparison.
Let’s face the facts: our political discourse is increasingly polarized and the rhetoric (especially on the right) more divisive and violent. The evidence supports this, whatever demands ideology might make upon the speaker. It is not Democrats talking about “Second Amendment” remedies or making comments about how “if ballots don’t work…” It isn’t Democrats who are forming militia units or touting gun ownership or talking about revolution and secession.
Sarah Jones talked yesterday about how “11 of the 20 representatives on Palin’s March 2010 map received death threats starting the next day.” Notice whose map it was, and who was threatened, and tell me if you think it was Democrats who saw the map and then made death threats against other Democrats. It’s not a likely scenario. It’s not even plausible.
So yes, let’s talk about violent political discourse but let’s apportion the blame accurately and stop with the politically correct “both sides need to calm down” approach.
The December job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are indisputably good. Net nonfarm ...
I think the Religious Right may have outsmarted itself. In trying to do an end-run around blockages to l ...
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart perfectly summed up the lack of logic behind Lou Dobbs' stated reason for resig ...
It seems incredible that the Republicans can claim that our budget deficit crisis is the fault of Barack Oba ...
Last night on The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart explained what net neutrality was, and also mocked the Republ ...
Sarah Jones
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 7:11 am
The false equivocations in order to appear “fair” are ridiculous and insulting. The truth is supported by empirical facts (as you laid out here, for example) and should be reported. If msm continues to play nice, we’ll have a nation of reality deniers who can’t think. Oh, wait.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 7:20 am
I agree, Sarah. Unfortunately, empirical evidence is shunned today in favor of ideological requirements. “Our ideology is true, absolutely true, and therefore A and B must be true.” It’s a rather backwards way of understanding reality; it didn’t work for the Soviet Union and I can’t imagine it will work for conservative America. The facts are what they are however they want to understand them and they will have consequences. You can fool people but you can’t fool the laws of causality: cause and effect will have their way with us regardless.
Barbara
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
well put, Sarah, I was just going to post the same thing.
Ray M
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 9:23 am
…deifies Reagan yet would not consider him a Republican were he active today…
This is not really surprising. Substitute Jesus for Reagan, and Christian for Republican and you see the same effect. These people live in childlike fantasies, not reality.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 9:35 am
So true, Ray. it is exactly the same effect.
Diane
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 9:25 am
The republicans have a tv empire and and talk radio station 24/7?
Not the Democrats. We need to fight the Fox empire with tv and radio programs. Nice to know we don’t have to waste our time with newspapers! We can keep those for Democrats to get their news!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Purity = Religion
Religion + purity = oppression
la Zingaro
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 11:11 am
If history tells us anything, genocide is right around the corner.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
It’s definitely only a short-step away. Their logic chain is in place and has been for 2000 years, more if you go back to the Old Testament
paradisestate
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 10:49 am
We have been and continue to kill men, women, children and babies in a war POTUS GWBush admitted was based on a lie and we wonder where the violence comes from? Representative Gabrielle Giffords ( D – AZ) is a warmonger who almost died by the gun. You fund killings aboard that violence will come home to you.
Simple. Straight Foreword logic.
We peace activist proclaim violence is the useless reaction to violence.
Representative Gabrielle Giffords ( D – AZ) when looking for blame on what caused the shooting need only look in the mirror at her support of a war long ago shown to be based on a lie.
AKRNC
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 11:19 am
It’s nonsense to blame Rep. Giffords for a nutcase that shot her and several other innocent people last weekend. While Bush’s war was based on a lie, we really don’t know what provoked Loughner into shooting Giffords. Is it a coincidence that she happened to be one of the only two people on the list that was re-elected? Yes, it’s possible but also very bad luck for her and Palin.
No matter how you spin it, until someone can break through to Loughner’s delusional status and find out what makes him tick, you, me and everyone else attempting to explain what made Loughner pull that trigger are simply speculating. However, there are many, many statements put forth by the Republicans as their agenda, demeaning the Democratic party and the President to such a hateful degree that if it doesn’t stop, we are going to see more of these incidents.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
You’re right, we can’t know exactly what triggered Loughner, but three facts are clear:
1) Palin put the list on her site with a crosshairs on Giffords and 29 others
2) 11 of 30 of those received death threats
3) Giffords was shot in the head
I call that pretty compelling evidence that those crosshairs were having an effect, perhaps combined with “second amendment” remedies and “if ballots don’t work bullets will”
Loughner may be crazy but he picked Giffords for a reason, that much is clear.
AKRNC
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
While I think it may be extremely likely that we’ll find out that Loughner saw the map and decided to be the first one to “take aim at one of the remaining targets”, we’re not going to do ourselves any good in trying to promote the changes we want to see in political discourse. I am most definitely NOT in favor of anything in regards to Palin nor do I agree with her about anything. I just believe that in order for us to be taken seriously, we have to wait until Loughner is further examined by psychiatrists and perhaps even until he goes to trial, to find out why he went after Rep. Giffords that day. I was furious to hear these Tea Party advocates complaining because she didn’t have security. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. They have been talking about how they are not violent, not racist, and promote neither of those ideas among all Tea Partiers yet they feel she NEEDED security. What happened to the idea of non-violence? Worse yet, do you think they can even see their hypocrisy? Sadly, I don’t nor do I think they ever will.
la Zingaro
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Thank you. And, exactly. From a Buddhist point of view, it is no wonder we have become a violent (even if only, mainly verbally rhetorical) nation. Once the US broke the Geneva convention the idea that we are no longer held to a higher standard of civility nor confined by ANY rules of humanity, we created this karmic desolate highway we are riding on. Why should people care what they say or how it may sound? We are AMERICA and we can invade anyone we want without fear of repudiation. In essence, we created an environment of bullying (international) that was certain to spill back over into our nation. (Reaping what we are Sowing.)
We don’t need reason, nor a REASON to yell, shoot, or fight, being angry is enough. We didn’t NEED WMDs to (retrospectively) justify our invasion of Iraq so why would we need proof, truth or civility here? The American people have learned by example, and what an example it has been.
It’s called Karma. And we created it, and we will answer to it, even if it costs US our country.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
From a Heathen perspective, we are dealing with what I like to call “Heathen karma” – ørlog
What we think of as ørlog (“Ahead law”) is the results of previous actions – the past, the starting point. The things we do, the things that have happened leading up to this point have created what is our “now.” What we are doing now is shaping our future, our own fates.
It’s a causal system, simple cause and effect with the ørlog of individuals you associate with affecting your own – when you interact with other lineages you gain access to power/luck which can result in change to your own life. Ill-ørlog can have the opposite effect.
So yes, though of a different belief system, I agree: we will answer for it.
la Zingaro
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Not so different really. Many people think karma is a good v. bad issue when really it is, in logical terms, simply the manifestation of associative conditions (happenstances + personal associations + personal choices made). I would explain it almost exactly they way you do. There are certainly more similarities than differences, mostly being cultural. I suppose to a christian or rather someone who calls themselves a “follower of Jesus”, you and I would be tough to tell apart. I am more than ok with that. ;)
Enjay in E MT
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
So how do WE, common everyday American citizens help FIX the problem?
The leaders of Congress & Senate don’t seem to want to “tone it down”
One side says – it infringes on their right to free speech
Palin is speaking at the Reno National Gun Convention
I do believe it is entirely possible there is a “group or organization” behind the curtain pulling the strings. Who is funding them? What is their ultimate goal? A theocracy?
A dictatorship? Destruction of US democracy? We have corporations as “people” thanks to the Supreme Court. Congress & Senators who should be wearing Corp. Logo’s so the voters KNOW who they will work for….
Rmuse
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Great article Hraf! I for one am growing weary of the “both sides” do it argument and the “liberal/left media” meme. The problem is the right lacks the capacity to admit that perhaps they are going too far; and with the nightly news pounding the both sides are guilty narrative down the public’s throat, it can only get worse. Like you, I defy anyone to find this “liberal media” who are inciting violence. I hardly watch MSNBC any more, but for the 3 years I did, I never heard the violent rhetoric, lies, and gun metaphors that come from the right.
It is time for the media to do its job regardless that they are owned by corporations with an agenda. That won’t happen and we can only hope the American people can work through the BS and get to the truth; but that means actually reading a newspaper or three. That also won’t happen. Only when the people realize they’ve been mislead will things change, but by the time they wake-up it will be too late. You’ve got to give it to the right. They, like all criminals, can shift blame from themselves to the victim better than anyone. The Tucson massacre proves that. Right wing hate-speech and media aside, the damage is done and I worry that so is America.
PDUB
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Are you people freaking serious? Have you ever seen a session of British Parliament or studied the history of free speech going back to the ancient Greeks? This discussion has made the word “hate” so subjective and diluted that it has lost it’s meaning. Over-the top, bombastic, heated, inflammatory, uncivil discourse is an American tradition.
Here is the real problem: Keith Olbermann is no Abby Hoffman, and Rachel Maddow is no Jerry Rubin. Even though I am opposed to the ideology they espoused in their day and disagree with every word they said, Hoffman and Rubin had balls. To their credit, they pushed the envelop of political discourse and (along with guys like Larry Flynt who stretched the First Amendment to it’s breaking point) allowed us all to speak our minds and say whatever the hell we want. Although their philosophy was anti-American, their charisma and over-the-top rhetoric made them true Americans.
What liberals have done is a return to ’50s America where anything too brash and bold was followed by finger pointing and sad, wimpy protestations. What you guys need to do is grow some cojones and find another Abby Hoffman. You need to jump start the Yippies to compete with the Tea Party, and find yourself another Hoffman/Rubin to compete with Rush/Beck. Stop whining about the Right and wasting your time on ideas to shut them up and just COMPETE!
God I love this country!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 17th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Oh in other words be like the republicans and lie? A lying competition?
No. No need to compete with the right. Just continue to show how much they lie. Sooner or later right wins out