Equal Extremism on Right and Left?

The idea that extremism (and the potential for violence) is roughly equal on both sides of the American political debate is a common meme that is contradicted by the facts. A case in point is the reporting and commentary on a recent attack on a fundraiser for Governor Bobby Kindahl (R-LA) in New Orleans as reported by Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo.

Briefly, as part of the festivities surrounding the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last weekend, a fundraiser for Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and her boyfriend were involved in some sort of altercation outside of a French Quarter restaurant. And they both sustained real and serious injuries. (To be clear, it seems amply clear the two were beat up; the only question is, by who?)

Since then the story has been making the rounds of the right-wing interwebs. The claim was that the assailants were anti-Palin, anti-Jindal liberals attacking conservatives. A conservative blogger even published what purported to be a quote from the NOPD saying the attack appeared to be "of a political nature." And that quote was picked up by a few other news organizations.

Alas, then things started going down hill. The New Orleans police denied ever saying anything like that. And now the actual police report has come out which not only contains no evidence of any partisan political intent but actually says that the assailants yelled misogynistic and homophobic epithets at the victims while the attack was taking place.

Most political violence in this country is commited by those on the right. For example, Jessica Stern provides thoroughly researched data on Christian extremists who have stalked, attacked and assasinated abortion providers. Unless I have missed reports of radical feminists from NARAL fire-bombing fundamentalist churches there is no equivalent on the left.

George Packer provides thoughtful analysis of this issue in his New Yorker blog Interesting Times.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have far more power in the Republican Party (it sometimes seems to include veto power) than (Naomi) Klein, (Spike) Lee, and (Michael) Moore have in the Democratic Party. The views of right-wing commentators in the grip of the paranoid style (Obama is a stealth radical, the Democrats are imposing socialism) are much closer to mainstream conservative and Republican belief than the views of their counterparts on the left (the levees in New Orleans were blown up by the government, the White House had something to do with 9/11) are to mainstream liberal and Democratic belief.

The reasons are complex, but I would list these: the evangelical and occasionally messianic fervor that animates a part of the Republican base; the atmosphere of siege and the self-identification of conservatives as insurgents even when they monopolized political power; the influence of ideology over movement conservatives, and their deep hostility to compromise; the fact that modern conservatism has been a movement, which modern liberalism has not. This is not to say that the more destructive forms of populism and outright paranoia can’t appear on the left. They have, they do, and they will, especially in times of extreme distress like these. It’s only to say that the infection has been more organic to the modern right.

This is why the exaggerated rhetoric of the mainstream Right often employing apocalyptic or violent themes and references is so disturbing. There is a long, tragic history of political violence in America committed by mentally ill individuals who need no encouragement from more rational voices. The use of such rhetoric for political purposes is dangerous and irresponsible. Further illustration is provided by a coming documentary on Timothy McVeigh discussed by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow with Jon Stewart on a recent episode of The Daily Show.

--Ballard Burgher