Freedom of Speech = Freedom from Responsibility?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So, I know, I know. It's Glenn Beck. We expect the whacko from him. And, of course, he's got every right to speak his mind; I certainly don't think he should be censored.

But at what point does he become responsible for the actions of people who follow his advice?



Buy farmland. Move to places where everyone is like you. Buy guns. Buy ammunition. And then... what? It's not like enclaving really works long term. Eventually, one of two things will happen.

1) After Obama's term ends without the world doing the same, maybe some of these people will pull their heads out and say "why did we listen to that guy?"
2) Someone provokes an incident.

The message sent by the American people this election was quite clear. The President won a resounding electoral victory and beat his opponent by more votes than Bush beat Kerry. Every competitive senate race save for one was taken by the democrats, and these aren't blue-dogs we're talking about; these are real progressive liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. And while the GOP retained the House, they did lose seats, and more people voted for Democratic Congresspeople than Republicans.

It was a fundamental rejection of GOP ideology. It was a rejection of the rape brigade, a rejection of the Ryan budget plan, a rejection of the concepts of the Makers and Takers, a rejection of the concept of the 47%, a rejection of conservative definitions of marriage, women, LGBTQ, race, immigration and drug law.

But the GOP doesn't seem to want to believe it. The constant refrain of "Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" continues to sing in their ears, drowning out anything resembling the truth, which is that they lost and they lost big, and then they turn to people like Glenn Beck, and he tells them to buy farms, move to where everyone is like you, and get more guns.

Or this guy, who advocates cutting EVERY democrat in your life out of that life, to the point where he doesn't know if he'd rescue a democrat who was drowning, and thinks that he can get better brain surgery in Mexico than from a US brain surgeon who happened to vote differently than he did.

Or these people who think that losing an election is a national emergency so they, who so often rail about how burning the flag is treasonous, fly their flags upside down to indicate distress.



At their McDonalds.

And why do they do this?

Because they've been lied to, by the guy at the top of this post. By Rush. By Karl Rove. By http://www.unskewedpolls.com By every pundit who insisted that Nate Silver was cheating. Hell, GOP donors are angry because they were assured, ASSURED, I TELL YOU, that Romney was going to win based on bad data using bad algorithms, and a campaign that wasn't going to be dictated to by facts.

So what responsibility to these people have to tell the truth, I wonder? Of course, I think they should tell the truth. There are reasonable arguments to be made on policy. There are reasonable disagreements to have. I just wish we could see more of that, and less insistence that Obama is a kenyan radical christian muslim nazi communist.

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

This is not an issue of the left. It's an issue that the right has to face alone, however it may like to define itself.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And I'm saying that we are. Very much so.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Then you need to try harder, because evidently it's not working.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Based on what? What conservatives are you reading, listening to? How clued in are you to the American conservative movement that you're somehow noticing that it's "not working?"

Is this based on evidence, or based on what you believe the conclusions should be?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Hm, the conclusion is based on the election results, which seem to suggest something is going wrong. Something in the conservative message is not resonating with the majority of Americans, and the GOP should seriously do some thinking on the subject, as opposed to possibly blaming their failure on everybody else.

And this isn't about me either, so I don't know why you should be so fixated on what I know or don't know, and what my sources are, if any.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And this isn't about me either, so I don't know why you should be so fixated on what I know or don't know, and what my sources are, if any.

Mainly because I wanted to know what was pointing you at that conclusion. The election results showed that a moderate Republican lost and that the conservative base stayed home. It isn't the messaging, it's the candidate.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

My bad, then. So there's no problem within the GOP and no identity crisis on the right. Please carry on until 2016.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There's certainly a problem with the GOP, and it involves the type of candidates we're promoting to the national stage. The GOP continually believes it needs to tack leftward to win, when their biggest victories of late have been due to tacking rightward.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Meh, we'll see how you guys fare on the next election. Then your theory will have a chance to be tested again. Perhaps a far-right Le Pen could win the nomination and then we'll see.

Now if you may excuse me, I have a music festival to attend ;)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Oh, there is a well shaped identity on the right. It's just much more extremist, irrational and counterproductive than any moderate GOP candidate would like to be. So Jeff is right in his own way, here. A wacko right-wing crazy-ass candidate is probably what many GOP constituents want. Whether that'd be a winning formula on elections, is another question. And exactly how useful would that be for the country after the election, is yet another question that I'm rarely seeing being discussed at all. Because people might not like the answers.

If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

It isn't the messaging, it's the candidate.

Romney? Okay... whatever.

so

Was Todd "Divine Rape" Akin not 'conservative' enough for the base? He was merely following the GOP script.

What about Karl Rove and his PAC's support of super-conservative candidates that had their walking papers handed out by the 47™? Were they not 'conservative enough' (for you)?

"According to the Sunlight Foundation, American Crossroads, Rove's super PAC, saw just a 1 percent return on its investments." So much for 'free markets' *ouch*

What about the other GOP candidates that lost in Congress? Is it their fault too? Character flaws all; not conservative enough(for Jeff) therefore they failed the GOP and Conservative White America™.

Ever hear of the GOP Pledge? It is a document that candidates must sign in order to receive support from the RNC. It has a platform that the candidate MUST run on. IT has the most strict conservative issues well planked, Jeff.

You clutch your pearls while you whistle past the GOP graveyard yet again. (What's that! ...lib'rels!)

The conservative message is based on the myth of a white people's manifest destiny. Come over to the 'dark' side, the fried chicken is Delicious!

Re: If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Was Todd "Divine Rape" Akin not 'conservative' enough for the base? He was merely following the GOP script.

The "GOP script" says nothing about rape being handled by biology if it's "legitimate."

The conservative message is based on the myth of a white people's manifest destiny. Come over to the 'dark' side, the fried chicken is Delicious!

This is...strange.

Re: If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

This is...strange.


hmmm...


MUST BE FRIDAY!