The Uncivil War: Blue States vs. Gray States
By Daniel Rigney
Conservative pundit George Will quotes Newt Gingrich as saying “I’d love to be civil, but my opponent is a maniacal liar.” Gingrich is referring not to President Satan, but to his fellow Republican, Mitt Romney.
This is the same Newt Gingrich who, in 1996, issued a memo to Republican politicians urging them to use words like “decayed” and “traitor” to describe Democratic opponents. Now Gingrich is going after members of his own political tribe in what can only be described as a festival of intratribal cannibalism.
Several days ago, a right-wing website ("I Hate the Media") caricatured MSNBC’s Ed Schulz as saying that “I’d love to be civil, but those lying Republican sacks of excrement make it impossible.” I don’t know whether Ed said these exact words but, knowing his show, I doubt he’d disavow them.
“I’d love to be civil, but ….” This phrase is showing up all over the place now.
Calls for civility are like a signpost. The sign points the way to civility, but it never actually goes there. In political warfare, civility is the first casualty. We’ve arrived at a place where it’s not blue states vs. red states any more. It’s blue states vs. gray states. It’s the new American (un)civil war in which Confederates are opening fire on each other in a bloody fight to determine who gets to lead the charge against the Blues. Last man standing gets to go up against the Union army.
Democrats, largely urban, northern, and religiously liberal or moderate, are pitted against Republicans, largely rural, southern, and religiously conservative. The rural Rocky Mountain states tend to side with the Old Confederacy, the more urban Pacific states with the Union. The lines are drawn, more or less, as the nation prepares to go to political war against itself.
How can this state of affairs have a good ending? Can a nation so divided long endure? Conservatives have most of the guns and money, but progressives have most of the brains and wit and, in the end, most of the people. We’re about to find out what kind of country we really are. Will we be citizens united, or will Citizens United prevail?
I’m not neutral in this conflict. I’ve pledged my allegiances. And while I’d love to be civil here, the civil war reenactors on both sides are making it harder and harder to remain so.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
jlsathre
kayrose
baltimore aureole
another steve s
Ted Frier
Kate Geiselman
Salon.com
Comments
From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.
From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.
From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
And what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads anyway? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.
News corporations have exercised their power to destroy or pick the GOP candidate. They attempt a self fulfilling prophecy by stating Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, despite the fact he has not attracted more than 28% of conservatives. And the news destroyed Herman Cain's candidacy with unproven innuendo and attempted the same character assassination on Newt Gingrich. And media hosts have denied Buddy Roemer a podium at the GOP Presidential debates despite the fact he is for campaign reforms. Yet the media hypocritically judge the viability of a candidate by how much money he is able to raise while decrying the evil of money in politics, most of which flows to them to purchase campaign ads!
The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics is so hypocritical. Distributing political ads to the masses is the biggest expense of political campaigns. If the media were to carry political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.
The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The National Rifle Association purchased a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. Should citizens and citizens groups have to buy a radio station to enjoy freedom of speech or a newspaper to enjoy freedom of the press?
To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and citizens groups! People don’t lose their rights when they associate in groups, whether it’s a corporation, a labor union, a nonprofit organization or even a newspaper.
Before you insist on more people muzzling campaign laws watch this video: http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/33-sampson and read the Citizens Guide to participating in Federal elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml