NYT: Right-Wing “Eliminationist Rhetoric” Must Be “Removed by Whatever Means Necessary”
In case you were wondering, there’s no such word as “eliminationist” except in Paul Krugman’s warped little mind.
Climate of Hate — NYT/Paul Krugman
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Posted by ZIP on Monday, January 10, 2011, at 3:01 pm | 
Tweet
“The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them”
But there’s apparently PLENTY of room for people who gratuitously accuse those who disagree with them of being accomplices to murder. Right, Paul?
Wow. The statists _still_ have no sense of irony.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”
———–
There is simply no way to anticipate what someone will be ‘offended’ by, or be motivated by. We would have to ban ALL speech to be certain.
First it was Climate Control (Petroleum), then it was Health Control (Care), and now they want Speech Control. How much more totalitarian can these people be?
Soon, we may risk being arrested for ‘illegal thoughts’.
.
Gastorgrab
Heh, heh, here comes “Minority Report”.
Krugman will no doubt review his article and “refudiate” his “eliminationist” reference in a retraction/correction at the earliest possible opportunity.
Right…….. right?
3…2….1…. *crickets*
While the left tries to pin yet another nutcase on the conservatives, history once again disproves them. To be sure left and right has nuts. Mara Liason made, for once, a good observation. In going around a circle extreme left meets extreme right. Supression of freedoms does not stope violence. It squeezes out the nuts. No matter how tight you screw down the lid on a pressure cooker add enough heat and something is going to blow.
Gee … and Paul write this stuff without benefit of the AZ shooter’s drugs.
Hypothetically, what happens when the truth motivates someone to violence? Do we no longer have the freedom to speak the truth?
If a speaker bares the guilt of the person he motivates, does some other person bare the responsibility for motivating him into expressing a certain opinion?
.
But “by whatever means necessary” isn’t “eliminationist”?
Zip:
Had the assassin been an illegal Mexican migrant worker, the Liberals (communists) would have blamed Governor Brewer for her tough stand on border controls (even though Ms. Giffords ALSO favored strong border controls) which “naturally” inflamed the “undocumented immigrants”. And thus justified the assassin’s motives and actions.
Had the assassin been a muslim, the communists would have blamed GW for using 9/11 as an excuse to send U.S. troops into Iraq and Afganistan, which of course “naturally”inflamed the muslims. And thus justified the assassin’s motives and actions. Like that Ft. Hood murderer/terrorist.
The REAL culprits here are the leftists and their communist fellow travelers, who will utilize all means possible and ANYTHING as a reason in order to carry out the “holy mission” of their calculated destruction of the Constitution.
NOW is the time for the newly elected majority ruled Republican Congress to fight fire with fire and to take no prisoners and to use Alinisky tactics against the Left.
Two can play at that game.
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
- Hillary Rodham Clinton
I believe the Hilmonster also quoted the famous quip by left-wing historian Howard Zinn:
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
Funny how, when shit comes back around…it’s usually stickier.
The left is in full demonization mode deperately trying to link the Arizona nutcase to the right wing and Tea Parties anyway they can. Even lying through their teeth, in spite the fact there is absolutely no evidence linking him to anybody. And liberals wonder why I have no intertest in political discourse with them.
“The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them”
Ummm…excuse me, but isn’t that one of your Progressive “God”, Alynski’s rules?
I believe it was Rahm Emanual who stated to zero “never let a crisis go to waste”. And they are streaching this terrible incident as far as they can.
Psst, Paul. There is not one shred of evidence to link anything any conservative has ever said or done to this crime.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
you know who
Krugman needs to take the challenge…
http://www.facebook.com/glennbeckschallenge
As Tom Lehrer introduced a satire song, “National Brotherhood Week”, in the 1960′s:
I know that there are people who don’t love their fellow man and I HATE people like that!
A pretty-much Liberal satirist, Lehrer equally gored the sacred oxes of both ends of the political spectrum, as evidenced by no-doubt-all-too-self-aware nervous laughter of his audience at that statement (probably hit a bit too close to home for comfort).
Touche!
Blow it out your commie hole.
The fucking rodent is going to need to remove my foot from his ass here real soon.
I have to loan it to Boehner to kick Pelosi’s ass tomorrow.
whthfk
I think to a larger degree than it will help the Left, this premeditated attack on the Right by the Left will hurt them.
They attempted to coelesce their minions by hate and emotion, feeding them something simple so they could repeat it over and over, but most people are very, very tired of this kind of bullshit. That’s why libturds got their asses whipped in November.
Yet, they go on and on attacking, with absolutely NO evidence or facts proving they are right. This is not 1994, or 1968. These people live in glass government and MSM houses now. It’s just a matter of time before the Right makes this intensely personal.
We will see released more and more personal data on the Internet on the miscreants of the Left. People like Krugman, who now just gets criticism for what he says, will find himself so intensely investigated that he’ll be afraid to go to his mail box, read a paper or listen to the radio. Just like Beck has eviscerated Soros.
The very best and most effective way to destroy someone is to publish personal data about them. What I mean by that is not his credit cards or his social security #. I mean all the dirty little shit that’s in their closet.
In the mid-90′s a bunch of senators and reps quit congress. What happened was a secret group of spooks dug into their Swiss bank accounts and other secret infor fountains of gold, put them into a brown enveloped, delivered them to the individuals with the suggestion that they not run again. That was all that it said.
In other words, run and we’ll spill the beans. In their cases, the money each had accumulated in Swiss banks, in secret bank accounts would have proven just how corrupt they were, taking bribes and such.
It worked. That ol’ unmarked brown manila envelope is the most terrifying weapon of surprise one can get.
How would you feel if every secret in your life was documented and delivered to you? No one dies. They just quit. Can you imagine what Ocaca will do when his past is finally exposed? It is a technique that works every time. I know. I’ve done it.
The Left believes the Right is as stupid as they are. Not true. They’re going to find out some day. Soon.
Add this. Never threaten anyone. Just do it.
Wingnut morons. . .Never found an issue that you couldn’t be defensive and paranoid about, didya?. . .
I just ran across a “Liberal Hunting License” depicting a donkey with bullet holes/shooting range paper target on another site. . .Yeahhhh, the right is absolutely blameless and put upon by the left. . .
commieobamie and whthfk are poster children for everything that is wrong on the right side of the American political and cultural equation. . .
Mindless, unthinking hatemongers. . .
The left had a problem with violence in the 60s. . .Ever since the 90s, with the advent of the militia movement, Timothy McVeigh/Oklahoma City and the advent of rightwing talk radio, the onus and violent rhetoric has shifted to the right. Own it, assholes. Then maybe we can all sit down and talk this mess through, maybe find solutions that we call all live with, maybe stop with all the “tit for tat” demonization of opponents and opposing views. Not that I’m holding my breath. Your heads seems pretty intractably implanted up your arses.
It’s funny. I’ve started out neutrally commenting elsewhere on this site only to find that IF you defy the conventional wingnut “wisdom” here in any way by failing to mindlessly failing to agree with it without questions, you can expect to be demonized or to have people post comments at the very least demonizing the left, if not me personally, rather than substantively respond to the points that I’ve made.
The even funnier thing is that, once demonized, if I have the temerity to respond in kind, the conventional wingnut response appears to be call me “just another lib who needs to demonize us”.
Well, guys, enjoy the echo chamber. One day, you all exit to find that the country has changed around you, just another generation of dinosaurs relegated to the dustbins of history, alongside the other “species” who found themselves unable to adapt to change.
Good luck. You’re going to need it.
The REAL Bob wrote:
“[The Left] attempted to coelesce their minions by hate and emotion, feeding them something simple so they could repeat it over and over, but most people are very, very tired of this kind of bullshit. That’s why libturds got their asses whipped in November.”
Wow, Bob, so erudite, so mature. So very ironic.
You’re like a fifth grader on steroids.
Suppose you’re going to attack me now for demonizing you, huh? (*laughing*)
We’re all Americans, homeboy. Maybe if you attacked less, and respectfully listened more, you wouldn’t be such a mindless zealot.
Anytime you want to have a rational and respectful conversation, let me know. You might learn that “libturds” aren’t space aliens brought to this planet to vex you or take away your God, guns and bowling alleys. We’re decent people that simply have a fundamental disagreement with many people on the right about how to go about fixing this country.
I’m not holding my breath, though. You and the other rightwing zealots here seem to have lost the ability to respectfully consider contrary points of view, not to mention seem to have ratcheted up the normal level of liberal demonization.
Good luck to you.
Just out of curiosity, exactly WHO has to die in an assassination attempt before people like you will admit that the “Second Amendment remedies” rhetoric has to stop?
Thank you deez and Polliwog. Yes, “the by any means necessary,” was too funny.
“If you speak with vitriol, we’ll KILL you!”
Zuma Bound says: January 10, 2011 at 5:24 pm – Anytime you want to have a rational and respectful conversation, let me know.
Zuma Bound says: You’re like a fifth grader on steroids.
Zuma Bound says: Maybe if you attacked less, and respectfully listened more, you wouldn’t be such a mindless zealot.
Zuma Bound says: You might learn that “libturds” aren’t space aliens brought to this planet to vex you or take away your God, guns and bowling alleys.
Zuma Bound says: Suppose you’re going to attack me now for demonizing you, huh?
No need.
No difference among NYT, TIME, Newsweek, WaPo, most printed newspapers, the alphabet networks, CNN.
They all are very pissed off that their influence has diminished dramatically. Instead of being Progressive kingmakers and the “fourth estate,” they’ve been effectively relegated to the trash heap and are ridiculed minute-by-minute as the fifth-columnists they are.
They have plenty of their own “vitriol” to direct at those who oppose them.
WZ folks,
If you can stomach it hit the liberal blogs to see how the left is taking the exploding myth of the Arizona tea party killer.
A logical mind, a rational mind, an ethical mind might say, hey, this was wrong. To blame Palin was wrong. To blame Beck was wrong. To blame the right was wrong. After all, it is become quite clear that there is no evidence, none, that links any conservative to the killer or his motivations.
But this is not what they think. They are holding on to the right-wing dangerous rhetoric falsehood like a pitbull in heat. Grudgingly (and somewhat forlornly) they admit that, yes, this particular killer wasn’t the crazed right-wing tea-partier they all knew he would be BUT it’s gonna happen soon, it’s just a matter of time.
Krugman is simply a shining example of this mindset. I believe it is known as cognitive dissonance.
LOL what tea partier keeps the communist manifesto. There is more evidence that this guy was extreme left.
“By whatever means necessary”
Isn’t that hatred and vitriol that’s going to lead to violence?
Angry American: Um, no, it’s not. Or rather, it IS, but that’s not what Krugman is calling for.
Seriously, am I the only person who noticed that the headline at the top of this page completely misrepresents what Krugman actually said in the column?
The headline claims, or is clearly intended to mean, that Krugman says “eliminationist rhetoric must be removed by whatever means necessary.” As in, he’s calling for harsh measures (presumably meant to imply something draconian or unconstitutional) in suppressing the rhetoric he sees as eliminationist. That’s obviously the way Angry American took it in the post above.
But that’s not actually what Krugman says. Read the relevant sentence in the second paragraph – it’s helpfully bolded here. “There isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.”
The part about “the other side of the debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary” is a characterization of the “eliminationist rhetoric,” an explanation of what he means when he says “eliminationist” for those (like “ZIP,” apparently) who aren’t familiar with the word – not an appeal to the reader to take that action. You have to misread that sentence very hard, ignoring context and basic grammar, to weasel out the meaning that the headline implies. This is a textbook example of grabbing words and cut-and-pasting them around to make them spell out what you want to imply the author to have said, rather than what he actually did say.
Personally (as might be obvious) I agree with Krugman’s assessment. I am stunned at the response of the right wing to this. The violent rhetoric has clearly increased, there have been repeated warnings and numerous lesser instances, and now, something truly awful has happened… and the right is absolutely content to pretend it’s just an isolated incident. This is either the biggest failure of pattern recognition imaginable, or self-serving delusion, and it’s not hard to guess which is more likely.
Oh, also: the word “eliminationism” was coined in Daniel Goldhagen’s 1996 book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” according to Wikipedia. I don’t know if the word had been used before then, but it’s at least that old.
So, no, not a product of Paul Krugman’s warped little mind.
Thirty seconds with Google. Seriously. Knowing what you’re talking about is fun!
I like how you trolls save Krugmans bacon but yet get all outraged when Palin criticizes Michelles nanny state marxist policies.
probably so, since you’re projecting your own frame of reference for an obscure and questionable concept. I’d never heard the term before either.. and that’s because it’s not a generally recognized concept or bona fide term. It’s a literary invention of fairly recent origin (1996).
And Zip is accurate; Krugman’s use of the term as a derogatory portrayal of conservative or Republican rhetoric exists in Krugman’s own mind.
Further, at some future time, the word may assimilate into the English language in the manner that wiki offers a common definition for.. but for now, it’s only a rhetorical tool; unless you mean it in this sense:
If that’s your meaning; you building with straw. Conservatives are NOT advocating censorship or outright extermination of our ideological foes.
If you seriously want to examine the concept; please consider the roots of it, per this referent:
Last time Krugman went after Republican “eliminationist rhetoric,” Reason Magazine’s Michael Moynihan found the roots of the word:
DanlBoone:
Two separate points:
First, my calling the headline “dishonest” has nothing to do with the definition of “eliminationism” or whether or not it’s an obscure term. The headline implies that Krugman is calling for eliminationist rhetoric to be “removed by whatever means necessary.” That’s not what Krugman said in the column – the “whatever means necessary” clause is Krugman’s definition of eliminationism, not his prescription for what to do about it. This is very obvious from reading the text, and it’s very obviously been twisted in the headline. This is incredibly intellectually dishonest, and I’m amazed that nobody else called him on it, whether or not they share his disagreement with Krugman.
Second, I’m aware of the origins of the word “eliminationist” in Goldhagen’s book. That would be why I already cited it. And I, and Krugman, mean exactly the definition you give when we talk about right-wing eliminationism. Nobody is saying that “conservatives,” i.e. all conservatives, are engaged in eliminationism or advocate the censorship or removal of liberals – that would be a straw-man argument that *you’re* bringing out. I’m well aware that most conservatives, even those who disagree vehemently with liberals on just about everything, would never advocate or desire that outcome.
I just wish they’d be a little louder in *saying* it, sometimes. Because every time we get a stunt like Palin’s gun-sight map (which I think is actually a very mild example), or Michele Bachmann calling for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” over Obama’s energy policy, or Sharron Angle shooting her mouth off about “Second Amendment remedies,” (those latter two are not quite so mild; both include explicit references to armed revolt in the full quotes), I see an awful lot of conservatives just shrug their shoulders instead of calling it out as being in awful taste at best and irresponsible or outright inflammatory at worst.
Do I want to see such speech suppressed? No (so let’s put away *that* strawman before he even pokes his head up). Nobody’s freedom of speech should be suppressed, ever – that’s too important to ever screw around with over politics. But what I want to see happen is for conservatives – yes, all conservatives – to pay attention when the rhetoric aimed at them veers into crazy, violent, or irresponsible territory, and to call it for what it is. This stuff will keep filling the airwaves and choking the national discourse as long as big, eager audiences keep lapping it up, and the longer it goes on, the more normal it will seem.
There are already entirely too many people at the crazy end of the bell curve who are getting, or have gotten, violent over the messages they’re being given about the government, minorities, or liberals. And there’s nothing – nothing at all – that the government, or minorities, or liberals, can do to stop it, because the people pushing the violent rhetoric only care about pleasing their base. That’s you guys. You have to stand up and say no, turn off the radio or TV, or take your votes somewhere else when this stuff crosses the line, or else that line is going to keep getting moved further, until it gets to some very scary places.
Otherwise, before too long, I think the meaning of “eliminationist” is going to get a lot less obscure.
Hello MBeast,
a reasoned response on your part. I respect that. And chances are, we probably have some common ground, especially striving for an *intellectual honesty in these kinds of talks.. without that, ‘ya got nuthin’ so to speak.
If I follow your point, I can agree that, gratuitous inflammatory language serves no positive purpose, whether it’s spun left or right.
*I can’t fully cede your point about Zip’s headline:
because of it’s structure. He set -Must Be- parenthetically. I think that shows an intellectual integrity. He allows for Krugman’s peculiar use of the term, while disagreeing with it in a brief economy of language from the opposing conservative view.
I would argue that, the term “eliminationist” is an illegal tool (propaganda); unless, it’s meaning is clearly defined. Being the anchor of Krugman’s thesis here; it is THE case in point.
Whether Goldhagen identified a complicit evil permeating the general German population circa WWII, identified a subculture, or wrote a novel; is a matter for intellectually honest historians to parse. Regardless; as Moynihan points out, Goldhagen was clearly speaking about the cause(s) of atrocity toward European Jewry.
Krugman’s peculiar construct using that same term is nebulous. If “eliminationist rhetoric” is held to the wiki definition:
then “eliminationists” are strictly militant fringe groups.. the all too many crazies you refer to. I don’t think that’s who Krugman is focusing tho.
Are some of Obama’s comments; gun to a knife fight, whose ass to kick, eliminationist rhetoric?
Was Kos’ bullseye-target symbols on a map preceding Palin’s gunsight symbols eliminatioist rhetoric? Should these languages/symbolism be censored by law?