Anger is only One Letter Short of Danger

While I have been unable to determine who actually said “Anger is only one letter short of danger” it certainly fits the current state of political discourse in our country today. As if to emphasize that point, it is becoming increasingly evident that U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has begun the process of making a run for the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States in the upcoming 2012 elections. Bachmann wasted no time attacking President Obama after his Tuesday night State of the Union (STOU) Address but unfortunately, she made herself look foolish in the process.

In her speech, Congresswoman Bachmann paid homage to our founding fathers for who in her words ended the institution of slavery in America. “…the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States…Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”

I won’t bother you here with too much of a response to that statement because anyone who has even the most basic understanding of American history knows that slavery was not abolished by our founding fathers. In the interests of accuracy however, I will remind you that slavery was not actually abolished until January 31, 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified. Also, John Quincy Adams was NOT a “founding father” but the son of John Adams, who was. Despite the efforts of our new Speaker of the House John Boehner to ensure the legitimacy of legislation introduced in Congress by its compliance with constitutional principles, it is apparently not critical for those who serve in the Congress to have an accurate knowledge of American history. Consequently, ultra-conservative Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a member of the Speaker’s Party, has somewhat separated herself from the pack by not only making an independent, non-sanctioned response to President Obama’s STOU Address, but is also making news by making the pretty embarrassing and incredulous statement crediting our founding fathers with the abolition of slavery.

Back on February 1, 2010, I wrote in my blog a post entitled “Tea Anyone” that should the tea party candidates springing up all over the country, readying themselves for the 2010 mid-term elections were actually sent to Congress, that “The Tea Baggers are in for an unpleasant reality. They will discover, if elected to office, that holding on to that office will cause them to flounder in all the compromises they will be forced into and that are a requirement for retaining office and while Republican congressional leaders are going to want to appease these new hard right-wingers as they come to Washington by handing out choice committee assignments to them, mainstream Republicans who have been toiling in the trenches for some time will resent being shoved aside in favor of the newcomers.” As a testament to this observation, Representative Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah remarked after Bachmann’s response to President Obama, “It was bad form.” This expression of disappointment comes on the heels of the rejection of Michele Bachmann’s bid for a House leadership position after the GOP took the chamber’s majority away from Democrats as a result of the 2010 mid-term elections.

But Bachmann is more than just a limelight-hungry politician. She also represents an anti-establishment tension simmering just below the surface of a unified but unstable Republican caucus. If the Speaker and his fellow establishment Republicans ignore Bachmann and her base, those tensions could immolate the Republican’s congressional agenda, particularly if she makes a stink over such shaky upcoming legislation as the impending vote on increasing the debt ceiling.

Curiously, the message from House GOP leadership is that Bachmann is strictly a third-term lawmaker from Minnesota who was given her choice spot on the Intelligence Committee. They see her as a media phenomena—not a legislative or political threat.

Bachmann has already flexed her political muscle however. As an example, she failed to provide her Tuesday night response to the STOU in advance to Republican leadership. Rather, they got it when everyone else got it—and they had absolutely no idea or warning that CNN was going to broadcast it live. As a result, Bachmann’s name appeared in the New York Times on the day after the STOU as many times as Boehner’s.

Republican Representative Steve King, R-IA, while he was for some reason unable to watch Bachmann’s speech, did review the written narrative. He ferociously defended the speech, saying the only way to “move a conservative agenda” is to have voices outside the leadership. More importantly, he thinks his Party could have avoided all of this fuss. Smarting from Bachmann’s rejection in her bid for a leadership position he says, “They had the chance to listen before the leadership elections and they chose to put their support where they did and so now they have an opportunity to listen to this message, and they can take a look at it and decide how much they want to consider what she has to say. She is going to have more effect in leadership talking to the press [than] in talking to leadership. In fact, I guarantee it.”

Interesting use of the word “they” don’t you think?

As if to show support for Congresswoman Bachmann from the other side of the U.S. Capital Building, Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC said that Bachmannn’s effort was a “good compliment to what Paul Ryan said.” He went on to say that GOP House leadership “should encourage any member who wants to speak out on the issues to do it. That’s what Americans expect of us. They don’t expect us to filter everything through our leadership.”

Uh-oh.

And now, a final word on Tucson……

During his campaign against Congresswoman Gifford, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly promoted a rally with the following notice: “Get on Target for Victory in November, Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M-16 with Jesse Kelly.”

While no one can say I suppose, with absolute certainty, that Jesse Loughner was aware of this rhetoric, this suggestive language certainly did nothing to encourage any kind of rational debate over the issues. Rather, it implied violence as a means to victory.

Our political universe is more than ever fraught with highly charged political discourse. Joe Wilson, whose “You Lie” outburst during last year’s STOU Address, has had his words engraved on assault rifles. The gun manufacturer urges buyers to “get yours before they are gone.”

During the Nevada Senate campaign, Republican candidate Sharron Angle talked of “second amendment remedies,” while Glenn Beck has openly talked of killing filmmaker Michael Moore wondering whether “I could kill him myself, or if I would have to hire somebody to do it.” Not least, we have the ravings of Rush Limbaugh who as I pointed out in this blog a couple of weeks ago, claims that Loughner has the full support of the Democratic Party.

Simply think back to the town-hall meetings last summer regarding the health-care “debate.” Tempers were hot, fist fights broke out and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were viciously attacked. Lies, such as the “death panel” rumors were unabashedly promoted, whipping people into an emotional and even physical frenzy. Guns were openly displayed at political rallies.

It is absolutely true that the left is also guilty of spouting hate, but a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report cautioned that right-wing extremism was on the rise. The report cited the “bleak economy” and the election of the “first black President” as “unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment” and even described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing right wing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

This horrific shooting in Tucson raises other issues: mental health services (or the lack of them) and the ridiculous easy access to guns, but the overarching issue of hateful speech is one that we can all work to overcome.

We must stop treating those with whom we disagree as our enemy. We should value reason over emotion, challenging lies presented as fact. We must learn to be better listeners. And, we must stop giving credibility to those who deserve none.