About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Political Violence In NH ( The UL Op ed that wasn't)

by: Chaz Proulx

Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 19:04:54 PM EST


Note: I wrote this in August 2009. Drew Kline of the Union Leader promised to run it but didn't. It would have appeared just days before Carol Shea Porter held town hall meeting in Federal Buildings for safety sake. Please note that I quote NH INSIDER writer Richard Barnes freely. I asked Richard's permission and he granted it.

Political Violence in HH

Recently the Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald and Nashua Telegraph ran editorials with a similiar complaint--they took Carol Shea-Porter to task for not holding live town meetings during the August Congressional recess. Two of these editorials made reference to the days when an unknown Carol Shea-Porter earned a reputation by asking then-sitting Representative Jeb Bradley very tough questions at live meetings.

I'm an activist-Democrat but I think that all three papers bring up legitimate points about live town hall meetings. But I'm afraid that there is a glaring omission in each editorial.

It's this: All three editorials fail to mention the very real and growing probability of political violence in NH.

Put another way--Jeb Bradley faced Carol Shea-Porter armed with tough relevant questions while Representative Shea-Porter and her followers and the public
are facing armed, viciously angry and anonymous people.

What evidence do I have? Plenty--some firsthand. I've been threatened with death myself. What brought on the threat? I was wearing a Carol Shea-Porter hat at the recent Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth. A protester and I had a few words, then he urged me to throw the first punch even though I had my hands behind my back. He followed by repeating, "I want to kill you." I believed him.

That incident is anecdotal--more revealing evidence is just a mouse click away.

As some readers may know I wrote a column for three years at NH INSIDER a predominately conservative web site. I was a "voice of the left" so to speak. Over the years I engaged in hundreds of debates in the comments section.

Richard Barnes, a conservative colleague at NH INSIDER has written extensively about gun rights and constitutional issues. Richard's column is widely read--last week he was rated fifth in NH web traffic by Blog Net News.

Following the reports of guns at the recent Obama event in Portsmouth, Richard wrote a series of artivles on the subject including  Democrats Fear of Open Carry ( 1 and 2) and Guns Around Obama.

I engaged Richard in the comments section of his blog about this. We had a long discussion with many revelations, but it all boiled down to my last question and Richard's answer.

My question:  "Have we reached the point where armed patriots are going to go beyond threats?"

Richard's answer: "It wouldn't shock me if we had. People can only be pushed so far before they push back."

Richard also believes that a number of people are carrying hidden weapons. He writes," I'm aware of at least one person who went to both the Republican and Democratic debates during the election who concealed-carried."

A commentator to Richard's column went even further stating: BTW, for anyone confused, there may have been hundreds of people carrying guns at the event. If you don't think so, spend some more time thinking about it."

At least one prominent conservative shares my alarm and has the back bone to confront an ugly trend. David Frum, the former (GW) Bush speechwriter and Republican strategist wrote a telling piece that appeared on August 13, inThe Week.

In Frum's words: "Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient--the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters."

Frum sites many examples including this: "Just yesterday, the radio host Sean Hannity openly contemplated violence--and primly tut-tutted that if it occurs, the President will only have himself to blame."

All of this is only the tip of the iceberg of course. The evidence is all around us. Militia groups are on the rise and with a black President, racists are spreading their resentments on fertile ground.

Lastly this: Political murder happens. A year ago on August 13, 2008, Bill Gwatney, the Chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party, was gunned down in his office by a disgruntled man with a gun. No solid motive was ever reported.

I guess the man "snapped."

Will someone "snap" here? The odds are rising every day.

Chaz Proulx :: Political Violence In NH ( The UL Op ed that wasn't)
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Should have been. Shame on the Union Leader. (4.00 / 1)
It's my sense that some members of Congress are like the promoters of dog fights, pitting factions of citizens and corporations against each other for the selfish purpose of keeping themselves in power.  And the press endorses what is usually a bloodless sport.  Then, when blood is drawn, they all hide behind "intent."  

Why solicit and promote the spending of millions, if not billions, on political propaganda, if we are to assume that it has no effect and nobody does what they're told?  If it doesn't affect behavior, isn't it all a fraud?


Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
The entire marketing industry is based off the idea that human behavior can most certainly be affected.  If it couldn't, then corporations would not be spending "x" amount of money to make sure their advertising is viewed (both political and otherwise).  It works, and so they buy in.

Also, in contrast to the "fight to the middle" theory that many independent-leaning Republicans and Democrats promote, studies have shown that, when running for office, it is better for candidates to play to the extremes (whether they be right or left) because that is the best way to inspire voters.  It is thought by some that candidates would continue to hop towards the "center", because a rational voter would choose the candidate that most adhered to his/her values, which basically means a Dem would vote for the 49% Dem over the 48% Dem; but this is not true because without a passionate candidate that stands for (or against) something, many voters lose interest, or feel that their vote is worthless and do not vote (which we see a lot of).  So, the best way to win (especially as the democracy in which you exist gets bigger - i.e., your constituency size increases), it turns out, is to incite passion - however that may be done.

Of course, this is one of many factors contributing to the increasing partisanship of our Democracy.  I think we should be looking at the major swings in power (from left to right and back) over the past 8 years as a sign of our country's political climate becoming increasingly unstable.  Politicians play to that for votes, corporate media plays to it to pit groups against each other, and citizens unfortunately buy in.

I personally believe the best approach is to think and behave as non-partisan as possible, so as to bridge these divisive gaps and encourage true democratic action.  In that context, I think, Chaz, you could have tried to include an example of political violence against the right, by the left, at NH rallies; so as to balance your article and better promote the peace message.

I do not believe you intended to sound MORE pro-Shea-Porter than ANTI-violence, but that's how you come across (i.e, I think you come across in your LTE as partisan, rather than someone who is trying to say, "Hey, we shouldn't be using violence to affect political change, no matter WHERE we stand on the issues!").

Unless, of course, your main goal is to promote Shea-Porter and denounce solely right-wing violence, or to make Republicans seem more capable of violence than Democrats - in which case, never mind.  Though, then, your message will fall upon deaf ears by Republicans and only incite further confidence of party-superiority by Dems - which only increases the partisanship of political dialogue in this state and, therefore, increases the chances of the sort of political violence you abhor occurring.

In other words, you'd be contributing to this "fight to the extreme" (will work on a better title for this phenomenon). :P

pragma supra ideo
http://carroll4nh.com/


[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox