Smears and Fears
Readers of this blog know that I hold strong viewpoints on some issues. That fact notwithstanding, I also strive to provide a forum for open debate and discussion. I always try to recognize that there are two sides to an issue…mine and the wrong one.
Seriously, though, recognizing opposing points of view moves us forward as a society and freedom to express our viewpoints often acts as a salve to the wounds created by divisive issues. Most of us understand we can’t win every fight, so if we get to have our say in an open environment, and our words are considered, we usually can accept it when a decision, political or otherwise, goes against us.
What I cannot stand, though, is the willingness to demonize the person based simply on his or her ideas. It’s one thing to say that an intelligent person would or would not believe something; it’s an entirely different matter to simply state that all liberals are idiots or all conservatives are heartless bastards.
I was really bothered, then, by this hit piece on the Constitution Party of Montana. The Constitution Party has proposed a “constitutional amendment mandating that a fertilized egg has a right to life.” This bothers the Montana Human Rights Network. It really, really bothers them. So much so, in fact, that it has unleashed a “research director,” Travis McAdam, on the Constitution Party.
That’s all well and good, of course. These two groups are free to disagree about whether or not a fertilized egg has a right to life. Beyond that, though, the hit piece was nothing but shameful. I disagree with the Constitution Party on a variety of issues, but my disagreement does not invalidate their point of view. I would never presume, either, to attack them simply for holding views outside the mainstream.
The Human Rights Network does not feel similarly constrained. Nor does it feel constrained to debate the issue in a way that is straightforward and free of insinuation and defamation.
First, the Human Rights Network criticizes the group for even trying to pass a constitutional amendment. After all, similar legislation “couldn’t even make it out of the ultra-conservative Montana House of Representatives.” Uh, excuse me? According to my count, the House of Representatives had 50, count ‘em, 50 Republicans and 1 Constitution Party member. If this is an “ultra-conservative” body, it certainly leaves one with the impression, does it not, that McAdam believes even one conservative is too many. So much for political “human rights.”
McAdam then goes on to attack the Constitution Party’s support for the notion of an “unorganized militia.” This support flows from a reading of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code. Granted, I don’t agree with the Party’s interpretation because I think it’s wrong, but simple analysis and disagreement is not enough for McAdam.
No, he has to smear the Constitution Party by implying a relationship with Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. Interesting, I’m pretty sure that the Human Rights Network opposes racial profiling, but I guess political profiling is ok. Wouldn’t you prefer it if McAdam would step outside the preconceived smear and instead explain why the Party’s interpretation of law is incorrect?
He then belittles the Party’s platform as “full of references to militia conspiracy theories.” Read it here. If you find it “full” of such references, help me out.
McAdam doesn’t like the fact that the Party’s lone member in the House of Representatives, Rick Jore, carried a ”bill outlawing the flying of the United Nations flag on public buildings.” The platform of the Party also says that the Party condemns “the Presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without the consent of Congress…Under no circumstances would we commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. We are opposed to any New World Order, and we flatly reject U.S. participation in any New World Army…The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of the United States…We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.”
Wow, wacky, wacky stuff. I guess in the Human Rights Network, the United Nations is beyond criticism, huh? That’s a funny position for a “human rights” group, isn’t it?
He then traces the history of the national Constitution Party (which he points out the state Party has abandoned) and Christian Reconstructionism. From this he implies that the state Constitution Party advocates capital punishment for “gays, lesbians, blasphemers, and adulterers.” Can you say…”defamation?”
The platform of the Party states that ”law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” Fringe stuff, huh? It’s only the law of the land in how many states? Again, though, in the Human Rights Network mere disagreement renders you fringe. The platform also says that the Party favors “the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals. Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is Constitutionally required.” Funny, nothing about gays or blasphemers anywhere.
Huh. It’s ok to smear those you disagree with, right? And who’s the self-righteous one?
McAdam says “The party calls for “abolishing” the 14th Amendment, which grants equal protection under the law to all citizens. While Jore wants to give due process rights to the fetus, he and his party want to take it away from other Americans.” Not true. The Party platform says nothing about denying due process rights to all but the fetuses, the party thinks it is a state issue. Maybe McAdam is worried that our “ultra-conservative” legislature will abandon due process?
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with McAdam that basing our modern civil law on the Bible is the wrong approach. It is not, however, wacky or fringe to suggest that notions of natural law and the Judeo-Christian ethic have long informed our legal system. I can disagree with the Constitution Party on some things and agree with them on others. I don’t need to lie or slant or smear to make my point. I can argue that the Bible should not be imposed on society as a whole without falsely suggesting that the Party would kill non-Christians. I can argue the legality of a standing militia, without disingenuously suggesting that all those who disagree would support the acts of a lone madman.
You see, the fact that you or I disagree with someone does not render them illegitimate. There really are two sides to the abortion question, the issues related to the United Nations, and gay rights questions. Some like to paint the Christian Right as those who would do anything to impose their will and beliefs on others.
It looks to me like some need to look in a mirror.
Gee Guy, it appears that your defense of the Constitutionalists (and Rick Jore specifically) stems from your own immediate assumption that McAdam is wrong. You then attribute to him many ideas and beliefs that may or may not be true (such as hatred for conservatives et al.) Given your own predispositions, it seems like it would be pretty useless to even attempt to convince you that on many points, McAdam is correct. So let me just ask you which is more dangerous to liberty: the Montana Human Rights Network, or Christian Dominionists among our elected officials?
As an aside I also have to ask; if you can’t demonize somebody based on his or her ideas, then on what basis can you? Since I know you believe in ‘evil’, I submit to you that some ideas are evil, and those who hold them are very worthy of being demonized for it. Do you disagree?
Wulfgar, I don’t assume McAdam is wrong. In fact, I agree with him on some of the things he says about the Constitution Party. I don’t agree, though, that it is ok to imply and mislead because I disagree with someone. Let’s argue the ideas, right?
You’re right that he does not say that he hates conservatives (of course I don’t say he does either). Why, though, would one attack by innuendo if he felt a conservative espoused a legitimate point of view worth of engagement? Maybe I jumped the gun, but I don’t think it is a stretch to see disdain dripping from his piece.
I do not believe EITHER the MHRN or the Constitution are particularly dangerous to liberty. I think they offer differing points of view about what are the appropriate rights and responsibilities inherent in living in a free society. I could make arguments about impositions to liberty by “the left” that I think MHRN would PROBABLY support, but I don’t want to go there because it’s not fair to them. I also suppose that one could make the argument that MHRN’s smear attack on the Constitution Party is dangerous to liberty in that it suggests that the group feels there are some political positions that are so tenuous that they should not only be discredited, but mocked and shamed at all costs, even at the cost of honesty in debate.
I don’t disagree that “evil” exists, but I am hard pressed to find it in the platform of the Constitution Party or the positions supported by MHRN. You ask that if one should not be demonized for ideas, then what should they be demonized for? Well, for the most part, they should not be demonized at all.
I do not consider evil a political position. If someone is an extremist, and advocates the murder of thousands to achieve his ends, that is not a political position, it is murder and evil. I can wrap my head around demonizing that person. If someone thinks that our government should adopt the Ten Commandments as law and advocates use of the political process to achieve that end, I do not consider that “evil.” I can see a qualitative difference there, can’t you?
Your WAY wrong, Gee Guy. The Constitstupid Party is INDEED a very scary bunch of folks. They are PART AND PARCEL of the Christain Reconstructionism and Dominionism. Maybe you’ve missed it, but THESE groups have done some really horrendous things ALREADY! How bout that Michael Heit, one of the early founders of the American Heritage Party, which morphed into the Constistupid Party. Mr. Heit went on to form Project 7. Do you even KNOW who these guys were and what they did? Methinks that you haven’t done your research on this one. These type of groups have actually FORMED THEIR OWN COURTS in other parts of the country to dispense their own “justice”. (as did Montana’s own Project 7) Good GOD, man! Use your google! You’re way off base to criticize the MHRN. They FORMED as a result of these wacks coming to Montana.
Geeguy- I think LK has made your point very well.
Sure, Wolfpup. I’m quite sure that YOU would simply love to go back to Old Testament times. These guys in the Constistupid Party out Taliban the Taliban! Ask’em yourself! No newspapers will. Sorry, but I don’t think that the U.S. is ready for THEOCRACY! But since you responded as one who thinks he’s informed, PLEASE expound, generally hold forth, enlighten us, and share your knowledge on Christian Reconstrcutionism and Dominionism! Oh yeah, and Project 7. And why those guys are in freakin’ JAIL! Sorry, puppy, I don’t think you know your asre on this one, which I don’t fault you for. For you see, you are NOT a newshound in the detetive sense of the word. I am. And I followed these wacks for YEARS! And confronted them on more than one occasion. Have you? (or is jonathon martin a good buddy of yours? I’ll tell ya stories about him!)
Larry K.EcoRangers, it is offensive to traditional Jews to use the term “Old Testament” as this indicates that the Bible has been replaced or superseded (supersessionism) by a “New Testament”, the Christian Bible.
Traditional Judaism does not accept that the Bible, or if you prefer, the Jewish Bible, has been replaced or superseded by the Christian Bible.
According to Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, otherwise known by the acronym Rambam, 1135-1204 C.E.), “The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and the Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses and there will be no other Torah”. (Source: Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith).
I meant no offense, Walt. But you gotta forgive us Genitiles.
“And why those guys are in freakin’ JAIL!”
Are you suggesting then, Larry, that the Constitution Party is being run from within our prisons?
No. But let’s look at the record. “Michael Heit, one of the party’s founders, was also a founding member of Project 7, a militia group that stockpiled ammunition and created a hit list of criminal justice employees in the Flathead Valley.” I believe that some members from the group are still in jail! And heit himself got in BIG trouble for impersonating a Vietnam Vet in Spokane. THESE are the founders of the C party. Now, if you can think of what merit such people might have to the betterment of society, I surely can’t!
LK- Would you turn down the cure for cancer if it came from a Constitution Party member? You said, “Now, if you can think of what merit such people might have to the betterment of society, I surely can’t!” the irony of this statement is that with your over the top style many could use this line of reasoning to dismiss your ideas and any other Eco Ranger’s ideas by association. Would that be fair?
Larry, you’ve referenced Jonathan Martin a couple times (here and at the Tribune, I think). I don’t know him, but I have met his wife. She’s a nice person.
Please list your specific complaints about him rather than generalized suggestions of wackiness.
I’d rather not do so publicly. Martin’s actions speak for themselves. Drive by Planned Parenthood some time when he’s out there protesting for starters. Then, ask him about his proselytizing tatics, ESPECIALLY regarding youngsters is a captive setting at a state run school. (and why he and his family were finally asked to stop showing UP there) etc., etc. etc. Then, be bold enough to ask him YOURSELF his beliefs regarding the imposition of theocracy in this country. Ask him what his views on public education are. For you see, Gee, I would prefer that others discover for themselves what these guys are all about. Hey, he lives HERE! He’s a phone call away. If you are really interested, ask him! He’ll probably tell you. Ask him how the C party got started, and all about Michael Heit, and Dave Bugert. Ask him where Dave is! Ask him why Jore used documents from the Plymouth Rock foundation in his attempt to win his election, a Christian Reconstructionist group that argues that lower courts can overrule appelate courts. Ask ol’ Jonny bout his views on the implementation of Bilblical law and what the penalties should be for crimes such as homosexuality, adultery, etc. Ask him what his views on the 14th Amendment are, and just WHO should be allowed citizenship in this country. These are all good questions to ask. For you see, Gee, I KNOW where these guys stand. Most others don’t. And that’s why I simply encourage others to research and find out for themselves. You know his wife, and she seems nice. Well good. Call hubby. Inquiring minds want to know, and you definitely have an inquiring mind. And post the results. Oh, and ask him bout what his views on the government’s monetary system, and why it should be overthrown. Heck, no better source than the guy himself. Or ask him to come on and post. These type of guys NEVER post anywhere for fear of being foung out.
And, Wolfpup, you point is ridiculous. The Rangers don’t want to change ANYTHING! We simply want to preserve, preserve clean water, clean air, clean environment. We ar NOT out to force our ideas on anyone. Oh, and it seems to me that it would be pretty darn hard to find a cure for cancer in a HOMESCHOOL! You see, the C party doens’t believe in higher ed, ESPECIALLY for half the population. Women! They should just be nice little homebound baby factories! What? You don’t believe me? Ask’em yourself! Can’t have no securlarists pollutin’ young minds!
LK said, “Then, ask him about his proselytizing tatics, ESPECIALLY regarding youngsters is a captive setting at a state run school. ”
Is this only bad at state run schools? What about parochial?
LK said, “And, Wolfpup, you point is ridiculous. The Rangers don’t want to change ANYTHING!”
My point was to point out weakness in your argument method. Specifically, that by your logic, because I think you may be a nut, it is reasonable to conclude that all Eco Rangers are nuts. The original point of Geeguy’s post was that it is wrong to demonize people/groups as a way of refuting their ideas that you disagree with. I can clearly see why you take offence to this notion because demonization is your main battle weapon in debate.
See, Larry, here’s what I have a problem with in your position. You’ve been all over the blogosphere attacking Mayor Stebbins about what you believe to be her limiting the public’s right to be involved in government, yet now you’ve singled out another group of individuals for their ‘dangerous’ ideas, and you imply that they shouldn’t have a seat at the political table because of their “beliefs.”
Doesn’t that seem a little bit hypocritical to you? I mean, who is to be the arbiter of what is a ‘legitimate’ idea and what is a “fringe” idea? You? The Human Rights Network?
WAY wrong, Gee guy. My ONLY point is that NO ONE gets a free ride! Yes, I believe that the Constistupid Party is SO nutty that MOST people would be dumbfounded by what they believe and what they propose. But here’s my point. But using the word “constitution” in their title, THEY DECEIVE intellectually lazy people into thinking that, one, they are a legitimate political party, and, two, that they have something to do with our country’s Constitution! So, I believe in HONESTY! I WANT the C party to explain their beliefs! I WANT everyone to fully understand that they do indeed want to turn America into a theocracy.! I WANT them to tell people how they want to replace civil law with Old Testament Biblical law! I WANT them to explain how they would like to dismantle the public education system so that everyone must homeschool their children like they do! I WANT them to inform women that they should march backwards bout two hundred years when women had no rights! I would LOVE for them to expound on their idea that the ONLY true citizens are white, christain males, who derive their rights from god, while everyone else gets their rights from the fourteenth amendment! And on and on and on and ON! No, GG, don’t get me wrong. But you see, NO ONE is printing what the C party is all about! When McAdams tells the truth, HE gets blasted for being unkind! So, hypocritical? Not at all. Hey, these fellas have computers. INVITED them on! But no free rides. In other words, if their nutty ideas do have merit, let’s debate them honestly! And that means fully explaining just WHY we should march backwards! I think that if most people undertood this, the C party would get the giant horse laughter they deserve. That’s all I’m saying. Honesty, openess. But again, the press isn’t doing it’s job. The C party gets a free ride. And NO ONE should get a free ride, even donna!
And wolfpup, NO ONE has the right to invade a state run school and attempt to proselytize captive students! And if you disagree, how would you explain to parents who send their children there that they are being exposed to religious beliefs without their consent? And parochial schools? What’s your point? People SEND their children to parochial schools for religious instruction! So, what’s your point?
p.s. Wolfpup, which of my ideas do you disagree with? I’ll be glad to debate it. How bout preserving a clean environment? Can we start there? I guess you’d demonize EVERYONE who works for a clean environment then! Hmm.
So, I guess what you’re saying, then, is that their platform does not reflect their true beliefs?
EXACTLY! Ask’em!