Newspaperheadlines are usually a bit depressing. Recession, war, crime and other such topics are common fare. However, this month's headlines are chilling.
A bomb kills hundreds in Oklahoma City; gas attacks in Tokyo and Yokohama; Unabom threatens new levels of violence; militias across the country vow to fight law enforcement. These attacks come only months after another abortion provider was murdered and bombings and death threats at abortion clinics are taken for granted.
President Clinton blames the attack in part on the plethora of "loud and angry voices in America today," implying that talk radio and the inflammatory rhetoric of Congressional Republicans was related to the bombing.
The President's usual critics pounced on the statement, claiming that Clinton politicized the tragedy. In doing so, they say, he lost the opportunity to serve as a strong leader and a healing, unifying force for the country.
Dumb politics, yes. But that should not obscure the fact that the President is right on target. As the motto of Michigan's libertarian Hillsdale College reminds us, "Ideas Have Consequences." That goes for conservative ideas as well as liberal ones.
When Republicans in Congress compare the children of welfare recipients to alligators and demonize illegal immigrants, can they claim to be surprised when a California talk show host suggests offering bounties for shooting Mexicans coming across the border? Can that host be that shocked when someone does it?
When the National Rifle Association tells members "With your answers to the 1995 NRA TAG POLL, I'll have the ammo I need to STOP BATF, KILL the gun and ammo taxes, KILL 'needs' based licensing, KILL the arsenal licenses, KILL gun owner fingerprinting and KILL gun bans [sic]," and ex-convict turned talk show host G. Gordon Liddy tells listeners that citizens have the right to kill federal agents in self-defense, just how far outside of "mainstream" conservative thought is the Michigan Militia?
When the National Right to Life Committee issues half-hearted rebukes against those who commit violence at abortion clinics while screaming "Abortion is Murder," is it any wonder that we have trouble distinguishing between "moderate" anti-choice activists and the so-called extremists?
When Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and a leading Republican voice, makes veiled references to the assassination of the President of the United States, how can the Republican Party claim to be a constructive force in American public discourse?
Newt Gingrich's response that Republicans do not advocate violence is disingenuous. While he does not secretly sympathize with the Michigan Militia any more than Hillary Clinton does with the Communist Party, Gingrich's rhetoric can only encourage such extreme acts.
The anarchist Unabomer rejects the "worldwide industrial system" on vaguely environmental grounds, but he was far more likely to have picked up the idea of using violence from the anti-government right than from the Sierra Club. Environmental groups that advocate violent action, such as Earth First! are called "the radical left-wing"; those who do so on the right are called "patriots," "visionaries," and, increasingly, "congressmen."
Political conflict tends to be divisive, and Democrats are not averse to destructive rhetoric, as the war against the Religious Right demonstrates. Today's conservatives, though, have an edge to their political activities that sets the stage for extremism.
While Democrats talk about social justice and government investment in the future, Republicans talk about fighting Satan in the schools, on TV and, of course, at abortion clinics. They talk about a government that conspires against its citizens and a President who is "the enemy of normal Americans."
Corporate avarice is a good target for investigative reporting; a government controlled by socialist Satan-worshippers is a logical target for violence.
The ideas of today's Republican Party are hardly revolutionary; they are nearly identical to Republican platforms before the Depression. However, the mainstreaming of figures such as Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan marks a substantial departure from traditional conservative politics.
America has always been home to extremist groups on both ends of the political spectrum. The difference now is that these groups are no longer on the fringe, and national political leaders adopt their rhetoric. This climate gives rise to the violence we saw last week.
The President's critics do not protect the victims' dignity by discouraging discussion of today's savage political atmosphere -- they merely attempt to defend the indefensible. President Clinton is correct in forcing those on the Right to face up to the consequences of their irresponsible rhetoric.
