Hi, everyone--it's great to be here. A deep bend at the waist to C&L for everything they do, and for inviting me here today.

I'm happy to take any questions you may have, including, "Is it selfish to want to order more than 20 copies of the book through the link in this post?" Answer: Absolutely not!

How do these right wing talking heads get away with this? Why is not something done or said but this? I mean much more than the little snips here or there that MIGHT get reported. Take Limbaugh's call for riots at the Dem convention. why were the MSM not screaming about this?

Jeffrey-

How have we come to a time where the framing of comments in a hateful light by the right wing talking heads are largely ignored? Why isn't this considered news? Has the situation become so common that people just shrug it off?

Maybe everybody had to go to the bathroom?

McCain's comment is a perfect example of what I talk about in the book--in this case we have a broad violent logic about Iran that the Republicans have used to clamp down on any meaningful discussion of our policy in the region, of homeland security, FISA, political dissent, elections--you name it. McCain's 'joke' does more than cheapen the debate; it undermines productive discussion about solutions, meeting goals, and so forth. The key is to see that McCain's comment was not just tasteless, it was fundamentally damaging to deliberative democracy in this country--a key part of our system of government and one that was valued by the framers and subsequent generations of progressives (John Dewey in particular).

What everyone in these situations is: (1) shine a light on these examples by bringing them to the attention of local news affiliates, (2) reference them on blogs (as C&L) did, and (3) make sure that no place where political debate happens in your life remains a safe place for violent rhetoric to inhabit unchallenged.

Hi Jeffery ,
When People talk to me about war , my first response is WHY .

Jeffrey Feldman @ 10:

McCain's comment is a perfect example of what I talk about in the book--in this case we have a broad violent logic about Iran that the Republicans have used to clamp down on any meaningful discussion of our policy in the region, of homeland security, FISA, political dissent, elections--you name it. McCain's 'joke' does more than cheapen the debate; it undermines productive discussion about solutions, meeting goals, and so forth. The key is to see that McCain's comment was not just tasteless, it was fundamentally damaging to deliberative democracy in this country--a key part of our system of government and one that was valued by the framers and subsequent generations of progressives (John Dewey in particular).

I agree with you and see this as a pervasive problem with the way that the GOP speaks about Iran in general. I grew up very close to an Iranian family and am fairly well exposed to the Iranian culture (there's a huge population in Southern California where I grew up) and this image that is continually projected of Iranians being this bloodthirsty savage bent on destroying everything about America has absolutely no basis in reality, yet I hear people I thought were smart completely buying into the Iranian = terrorist meme.

It's the same with the Ahmadinejad saying that he wanted to wipe Israel off the planet --violent rhetoric if there ever was. But HE. NEVER. SAID. IT. and there isn't a week that goes by I don't hear a news person say he did.

I guess my point is that these GOP violent memes seem to get far more traction than truth and there has to be something we can do to halt that, right?

Jeffrey Feldman @ 11:

If violent rhetoric is opposed on matters of taste alone, then the media response devolves into a discussion about choice ("If it's so offensive, why do so many people tune in"? etc.). But when we emphasize how violent rhetoric weakens American democracy, we force the media to consider a much larger argument. We are only at the beginning of that project and I hope Outright Barbarous does some heavy lifting in that direction that everyone can put to use immediately.

You talk about this in the book, but can you expand that for our readers that haven't (YET!) purchased Outright Barbarous?

So your book and your philosophy need to be talked about on such shows as Hardball and Olbermann. I'm sure the O'Reillys would hide from it like the plagua as probably Matthews will but at least Olbermann could be interested. I sure hope you are doing everything possible to get on the book tour with these shows.

constituent @ 15:

jeffrey
maybe i give too much credit to the republicans/NEOCONS...but it seems like a linguistic strategy....as if they know the opposing response. if you
challenge tough talk or this no fear culture your some how soft on terror....could they be selling war with this strategy?

I think what they are selling is secrecy--which is to say, they are selling a form of government based on total concealment from public view, the exact opposite of what the framers intended. So the key to arguing against unnecessary involvement or starting of wars (because not all involvement in war is wrong) is to lead people into a discussion about "the kind of government we want." I always use the word "secrecy" when talking to people about what went wrong with the Iraq war. And I am sure to say that this whole war is part of an effort to fundamentally change our government--to create a permanent majority for one party, and to use endless violent scenarios to scare people into supporting a new form of government that is hidden from them and works against them.

And that typically works.

Bluesage @ 19:

For a very long time I thought this was strictly a Republican phenomenon but after experiencing the Democratic Primary season when it came down to Obama vs Clinton it became apparent that it is not. The vitriol and hatred aimed at the Clintons by so-called fellow Democrats was appalling to me and I'm still trying to figure out where all these new Democrats came from. I believe after almost eight horrifying years of Bush/Cheney and their contempt for the law and for human rights this is now the society that we live in and it permeates all of society. The media is now like Typhoid Mary and carries this disease to everyone it touches. What are the solutions?

I think you've made a very valid point, bluesage, and one that I took a lot of hits (ooh! violent rhetoric! But that's what it felt like to me) on this site for. Like her or loathe her, there was some very violent terminology used against Hillary Clinton by supposed Democrats. And it made it very uncomfortable for people like me--who didn't particularly support Clinton's campaign, but felt compelled to defend her against that kind of language.

We are leaving on vacation tomorrow and I was a bit panicked because I had no new book to take with me to the beach. I come here to the C&L site and bingo, I know which book to purchase tonight at the bookstore. Thank you Nicole and Jeffery too.

My own observation is that people use this sort of language where they feel comfortable using it. In a group they feel are like minded people. The media seems to forget we are not all like minded people.

Nine times out of ten it seems those who are the weakest are the ones who are most apt to use the most violent language.

When did this all begin? What changed in our country that took us down this road?

Jeffrey Feldman @ 20:

constituent @ 15:

jeffrey
maybe i give too much credit to the republicans/NEOCONS...but it seems like a linguistic strategy....as if they know the opposing response. if you
challenge tough talk or this no fear culture your some how soft on terror....could they be selling war with this strategy?

I think what they are selling is secrecy--which is to say, they are selling a form of government based on total concealment from public view, the exact opposite of what the framers intended. So the key to arguing against unnecessary involvement or starting of wars (because not all involvement in war is wrong) is to lead people into a discussion about "the kind of government we want." I always use the word "secrecy" when talking to people about what went wrong with the Iraq war. And I am sure to say that this whole war is part of an effort to fundamentally change our government--to create a permanent majority for one party, and to use endless violent scenarios to scare people into supporting a new form of government that is hidden from them and works against them.

And that typically works.

thanks for taking my question.......you bring up an interesting angle...secrecy is talked by critics of the bush administration. the executive branch often ignores the legislative branch...essentially they have no voice on certain issues unless members are allowed into closed door meetings. i see what your saying with the ongoing fear tactics to sell secrecy

Nicole - Thank you. I've taken many hits for this view and it's interesting because I was not a Hillary supporter but felt almost compelled to defend her. So I did, took my hits and felt good about it.

pissed off patricia @ 23:

We are leaving on vacation tomorrow and I was a bit panicked because I had no new book to take with me to the beach. I come here to the C&L site and bingo, I know which book to purchase tonight at the bookstore. Thank you Nicole and Jeffery too.

My own observation is that people use this sort of language where they feel comfortable using it. In a group they feel are like minded people. The media seems to forget we are not all like minded people.

Nine times out of ten it seems those who are the weakest are the ones who are most apt to use the most violent language.

When did this all begin? What changed in our country that took us down this road?

Thanks for checking out the book! We thought about including a coupon for sunblock with every book, but that idea was nixed at some point (drat!).

When did this begin: Answers differ. Rick Perlstein would say it began with Nixon. Some folks would say that if you go back to the election of 1800, you'll find violent rhetoric hurled at Jefferson by Hamilton advocates. In the book, I identify September 11, 2001 as the moment when a bunch of National Review style right-wing pundits switched their focus from 'liberal debauchery' to 'liberal threat to the lives of Americans.' Those are the folks I write about in the book.

We’re working on it. But if anyone has a relative who babysits for Keith Olbermann…please contact me ASAP ; )

Why? Are you planning on writing a tell-all novel? ;)

Jeffrey Feldman @ 28:

Bluesage @ 19:

For a very long time I thought this was strictly a Republican phenomenon but after experiencing the Democratic Primary season when it came down to Obama vs Clinton it became apparent that it is not. The vitriol and hatred aimed at the Clintons by so-called fellow Democrats was appalling to me and I'm still trying to figure out where all these new Democrats came from. I believe after almost eight horrifying years of Bush/Cheney and their contempt for the law and for human rights this is now the society that we live in and it permeates all of society. The media is now like Typhoid Mary and carries this disease to everyone it touches. What are the solutions?

This is a good point and I'm glad you raised it.

What I write about in the book is violent rhetoric in broadcast media. I do that because I see the threat of violent rhetoric first and foremost at the level of individuals who have the power to multiply their voices hundreds of millions of time through massive book runs, broadcast and cable TV, and radio. These pundits are the folks holding violent rhetoric in our debate and they need to be stopped if we want the system to change.

What happened in the primary was some violent language in citizen forums--individuals who had a much, much smaller reach and who were using public forums. This is a slightly different issue because in a public forum, typically, when violent rhetoric emerges it is pushed off the table by other members of the forum. This time, that did not always happen and as a result, many people felt attacked, angered, and hurt (me included on several occasions).

The choice we have in that instance is to leave that particular public forum and find another and I think that's what many people did. As a result, the primary actually made me feel good about where we have come in terms of repairing our deliberative society. Those forums overhwhelmed by citizens using violent rhetoric were temporarily undermined--rendered useless. Those that were not, became more productive, more critical, more engaged. And now that the primary is over, those same forums are again redistributing readers/bloggers and moving forward.

Big media, by contrast, is like a giant ship on the ocean that needs to be pushed and pushed until it finally turns.

What can you do about this in public forums? Call it out! Tell people that you do not tolerate violent language. And then walk away (for the moment).

It wasn't just public forums. The media had a big part in this. Look at Chris Matthews.

Nicole Belle @ 22:

Bluesage @ 19:

For a very long time I thought this was strictly a Republican phenomenon but after experiencing the Democratic Primary season when it came down to Obama vs Clinton it became apparent that it is not. The vitriol and hatred aimed at the Clintons by so-called fellow Democrats was appalling to me and I'm still trying to figure out where all these new Democrats came from. I believe after almost eight horrifying years of Bush/Cheney and their contempt for the law and for human rights this is now the society that we live in and it permeates all of society. The media is now like Typhoid Mary and carries this disease to everyone it touches. What are the solutions?

I think you've made a very valid point, bluesage, and one that I took a lot of hits (ooh! violent rhetoric! But that's what it felt like to me) on this site for. Like her or loathe her, there was some very violent terminology used against Hillary Clinton by supposed Democrats. And it made it very uncomfortable for people like me--who didn't particularly support Clinton's campaign, but felt compelled to defend her against that kind of language.

I agree that there was much hatred spewed in the comments section, but to say it was directed only at Hillary wouldn't be entirely truthful. There was plenty of hate directed at both candidates and their supporters.

Charles @ 30:

Our government only moves quickly to do the following:
1) Take away our rights
2) Cover up their criminal activities (gov't or corporate)
3) Bomb or invade a country inhabited by dark skinned people

It's relatively general to set up a culture and or country by using the following methods. Since there is only so much gold to go around, the rest of us get symbols. Flags, slogans, other icons (mom, baseball, apple pie). The vast complex system includes schools, news organizations, corporations, and religious groups to frame their interests as YOUR interests. In our country, there are very few people who actually think for themselves. We are constantly told to "think outside the box" while not "rocking the boat." Only a very small percentage of the public at large sees this. And even fewer attempt to dig deeper to find out what's really going on or who is manipulating this point of view and for what end result.

I hear you. Here's my solution: When you buy a copy of Outright Barbarous, also pick up a copy of Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert. If anyone doubted that American government was about accomplishing herculean public works at breakneck speed--Reisner's masterful description of the western desert reclamation project should put that notion to rest forever. My god what a time it must have been. Literally, the government overcame selfish individualism and reshaped the world we live in. They also messed up the water supply in this country and created conditions that will take another huge effort to fix--but that's a different subject! Now back to my book...After only eight years of concentrated violent rhetoric dominating our political debate, many of us have forgotten what it feels like to be part of a debate that sets your heart racing about the huge public works government and government alone is capable of achieving. I believe we can get back there over the next 8-10 years, but our first task is cleaning up the airwaves.

Nicole Belle @ 32:

Jeffrey, one of the posts I'm working on right now is Obama's response to the issue of abortion and I've noticed in my research that James Dobson has criticized Obama for "distorting" religion, including his attitude towards abortion. Now Dobson is the same guy who advocates corporal punishment as part of his doctrine--a huge cognitive dissonance from the man who is supposedly teaching the Word of the man who said "Blessed are the peacemakers."

But I see a lot of violence in terms of the Christian right. They think that secularism is at war with them, they have video games like "Left Behind" that allows players to shoot non-believers. The whole End Times rhetoric is incredibly violent and seems to have ramped up considerably in the last 10-15 years.

What do you see has as the danger of Dobson's particular form of benign violent rhetoric against Obama in this election?

Let me just say that Dobson is the most disturbing person in the book. After writing that chapter I literally had to take a break for two weeks to clear my head. He is not just a violent thinker; he has a violent worldview based on the idea that physical punishment of small children by their parents is the only way to create healthy citizens. The result is a doctrine that produces an American sociopathy instead of American society.

Dobson's threat to the election is that he could siphon off hundreds of thousands of voters by convincing them that both candidates pose a violent threat to a certain, narrow version of evangelical life in this country. If that happens, 2008 could be 'year one' for a social movement not unlike the Neo-Confederates. Insular, paranoid, and convinced that morality has been suspended. The good news (phew!) is that evangelicals are getting as tired of Dobson as the rest of us. There's a growing movement away from Dobson's fringe and back towards a more reasoned version of mega-church life rooted in scriptural applications to pressing problems (e.g., global warming and poverty). It's going to be interesting, that's for sure. And we can expect many more 'performances' from Dobson between now and November.

Rush just got a ten year contract for I forget how many millions of dollars. How do we get back to reasonable discourse when spewing hate the way he does pays so well? Let's face it in our society today, violent language sells.

I agree with you, it seems after 9-11 the violent language exploded. Everyone wanted to sound meaner than the next person. It was almost required to express how much you hated "the terrorist". Political or just reasonable correctness was tossed out the window. I wonder if it's something throughout history associated with times when we are at war?

Kriskin @ 35

I would respectfully disagree with you on that point. It became very dangerous on most forums to not be an Obama supporter and any questioning of his positions was deflected by accusations of racism and worse. This was not just on the internet but MSNBC almost morphed into the "liberal" version of Fox News. Because of this primary season I no longer watch any cable news and I no longer visit sites like Huff Post, Americablog and the most disappointing was Buzzflash where I bought a lot of books and other premiums. I blame this on the Culture of Bush where this kind of rhetoric and total lack of respect is acceptable.

pissed off patricia @ 41:

Rush just got a ten year contract for I forget how many millions of dollars.

$400,000,000
He gets this much money because his discourse is so aggressive. Now do you think that his employers are going to tell him to tone it down?

Jeffrey Feldman

Thank you for responding to my post and for all your insightful thoughts here. I look forward to buying and reading your book.

Captain Obama’s Bitter Half Husein Kangaroo @ 44:

pissed off patricia @ 41:

Rush just got a ten year contract for I forget how many millions of dollars.

$400,000,000
He gets this much money because his discourse is so aggressive. Now do you think that his employers are going to tell him to tone it down?

It has become some kind of joke in our house to end sentences with "or we're all gonna die". This came about as a result of the media hyping everything they say.

I know they are not going to ask him to tone it down, and therein lies the problem. This brings us full circle back to Jeffery's book.

Samson- @ 40:

Hi Jeffrey,

you write that "violent rhetoric weakens American democracy"

i am not going to disagree. but, one could definitely argue that that line of argument will only reinforce the right's use of violent rhetoric.

also, pray tell, in a discussion about violent language and the media where does corporate responsibility come in? they broadcast the vile thugs, they advertise and profit. one, i suppose, could argue that the market actually rewards violent language, could they not?

Great comment.

In the book I give a bunch of suggestions on how to fix this situation, one of which is the decentralization and re-localization of media. It's not the for-profit structure, per se, that's the problem. It's the homogenization of media that results from a certain approach to media. The best media in this country is at the level of local newspapers--real reporting, grounded teams, devotion to journalistic integrity. So it's an old problem of the metropole smothering what's good about the product. It can change, but in the short run: invest in citizen driven and local media.

On my use of the word 'violent': There are a few words in the English language that, when used to label someone in political debate, have an effect not unlike a cross on a vampire. 'Rapist,' 'racist,' 'thief'--these are the kind of words I mean. 'Violent' is one of those words. It turns anyone described by it into a threat and it invokes the fundamental idea that one needs to be protected from this person. In most instances, pundits who use violent rhetoric are using metaphors and narratives that follow a violent logic. So by naming it, I create that pressure that forces a reaction.

But this effort is a watchdog project, and the book is also balanced with a discussion in each chapter on how to restart pragmatic discussions on core issues.

Jeffrey, the NRA (especially their head, Wayne LaPierre) gets a lot of play in the book and the way that the NRA has commanded the discussion about gun rights and gun control is one of the most dishonest I've ever seen.

How much of the NRA's rhetoric do you think played into the Supreme Court's recent ruling on handguns?

Ah yes. Another book to buy. Good thing my husband is building me this really kick ass bookcase.

Another interesting book is High Wire by Peter Gosselin. The book's premise is that since 1970 the economy has made a major shift that has left the average worker and their family bearing a lot more risk when things go wrong (e.g., healthcare expenses and/or coverage, unemployment, retraining, retirement, etc.).

If the GOPers had their way (e.g., the Shrub's Ownership Society) then even more risk would be transferred onto the worker. It might be one thing if the gains to the worker were commensurate with the risk that they assume, but it wasn't. In addition, the average person is not usually able to fully manage that amount of risk (e.g., investment management) and they end up getting really clobbered when a piece of bad luck comes their way.

Jeffrey Feldman Says:

Captain Obama’s Bitter Half Husein Kangaroo @ 4:

How do these right wing talking heads get away with this? Why is not something done or said but this? I mean much more than the little snips here or there that MIGHT get reported. Take Limbaugh’s call for riots at the Dem convention. why were the MSM not screaming about this?

Good question. The answer is very simple: because not enough people explain why violent language is damaging to democracy. If violent rhetoric is opposed on matters of taste alone, then the media response devolves into a discussion about choice (”If it’s so offensive, why do so many people tune in”? etc.). But when we emphasize how violent rhetoric weakens American democracy, we force the media to consider a much larger argument. We are only at the beginning of that project and I hope Outright Barbarous does some heavy lifting in that direction that everyone can put to use immediately.

Do we try to restore FCC regulation (i.e., license renewal requiring a case for how they are serving the public with a place for public comment to argue the opposite), do we go to the media companies themselves (if they had a conscience they wouldn't have this stuff on in the first place, or should be be talking to the various sponsors?

Ruthless People @ 47:

Vicious attacks are in the GOP's DNA. The death of Jesse Helms this past week brings to mind that since the 1950's and beyond reich wing conservatism has been out sewing fear, hate, division and therefore... control. Divide and conquer, the 50 + 1 election strategies....and if all else fails...stack the courts with anti-democratic fascist justices that will thwart an election in the Republican's favor if need be. The biggest threat to America, and her founding principles, comes from within our borders from the right wing politicians, their uninformed, narrow minded and easily lied to supporters and the propagandizing reich wing media outlets on FOX, cable news and hate radio. Just this past week it was announced Rush Limpballs, the pill popping cripple mocking self-proclaimed water carrier for the reich, got a sweetheart deal making him millions and millions of dollars spewing his hate, lies and venom. If Limpballs didn't have a large following in this country he would have fallen on his fat ass long ago, but he does, and that's what's really scary. Limpballs even tells his listeners he's being lying to them by carrying water for GOP but they don't care, they still listen and support him, because he taps into their hatred and fear and that's what wingnuts feed on.

Rush got his cash, no doubt. But keep in mind that radio is no a boom industry, while new media is. There is a certain segment of the population that thrives on Limbaugh's stuff, but it is shrinking, dying, and increasingly swayed to newer forms of media. So, as crazy as this may sound--I think what we're seeing with Limbaugh is the last gasp. The same with Coulter. The right-wing pundits who really keep me up at night are Buchanan and O'Reilly. Buchanan is the most dangerous man in political punditry. He lies constantly, is wicked smart, and for god's sake the man never sleeps. One week, I swear, Pat Buchanan was on all major networks at the same time. O'Reilly is a problem because everyone underestimates him. Bill understands new media and he understands how to reinvent himself to stay relevant. Finally, I worry about Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is the source of more violent ideas than any other person who once held high office--second only to Cheney. And Gingrich has a dual identity in both policy making and punditry.

Interesting that.....

No others but America and little America wannabes have to have a War On Something......Drugs, Poverty, Christmas, Terror.....and where there is a war, there are War Profiteers, the real reason these wars happen.

You are an inherently violent people and very bad for the future of all of us on this planet, unless you change your ways real fast....

ThunderMonkey @ 59:

I never gave it much thought (the use of "violent" language), but it seems to trickle down from the political leaders (Bush, McCain) and their rhetoric and from there the Right seems to pick up on it.

If there's a shift to the Left and this rhetoric comes down a bit from the leadership, will have the same impact or will it cause the mouthpieces and/or puppets to ramp up the violentspeak?

Great, great question. In general, I would say that the pundits 'set the frame' with violent language that Bush and Cheney thrived in. But it's hard to know exactly where these rhetorical lines begin exactly. I doubt the left will take it up wholeheartedly because the left's punditry tends to focus more on humor as a tool, instead of vilification. But one thing I explain in the intro to the book is that the left used violent framing prior to the right, but that this in the current phase of political rheotoric the right has taken it exponentially further. A huge influence on my book was a study by Hannah Arendt called On Violence, in which she critiques the left's use of violent ideas and language in the 1950s and 1960s. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that we could see a shift back to that, but I doubt that will happen in the short run. But let me say clearly: one reason I write about violent language on the right is to discourage it on the left. Because I believe the left is capable of achieving great things with government, and violent rhetoric undermines that effort.

Nicole

My comment @ 43 says it's awaiting moderation. Why? This has never happened to me before. Is it because I named a few names of sites and a cable station that went so far over the top in their coverage and rhetoric that I will no longer visit them? I was responding to a comment by Krisken @ 35 and was very respectful, what gives?

If we cannot name those who were so over the top in their coverage, I cannot possibly see how this problem can be resolved and we can move toward a more tolerant discourse in the future. We can call out Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage and that ilk and Lord knows, they need to be called out but so do those that profess to be progressives and fall into the same trap
and have such a bias that no opposing views are tolerated.

Nicole Belle @ 61:

Jeffrey Feldman @ 55:

Over the next ten years, I predict that the pragmatic discussion will make in roads as more and more gun accidents happen in homes and, particularly, in schools.

My god, how many more shootings would we need to have? IIRC, the NRA tried to capitalize on the Virginia Tech shooting by suggesting that if the other students and teachers were armed, this might necessarily have been a tragedy. I can't imagine any sane person suggesting that. But as you say, this appears to be the mindset of the NRA leadership: society as an uncontrolled, gun-toting Wild West where everyone else is out to harm you.

OMG, I remember that (re: NRA suggesting that teachers--and students--be armed.) I was stupefied. I am a high school teacher. This is a horrifying claim. The public's general silence on this also worries me. The fact remains that there are too many people who actually would believe this and think it's a good idea !

what i think is somewhat interesting is that some people get off on a daily dose of hate radio/tv. it's red meat for some......is it easier to hate than talk rationally for certain people. sometimes i feel people are preoccupied with the voilence/hate they are taken out of the democracy process. some how these people are convinced to take it to lowest denominator. they're not clear headed....so irrational decisions are made.

Bluesage @ 67:

Nicole

My comment @ 43 says it's awaiting moderation. Why? This has never happened to me before. Is it because I named a few names of sites and a cable station that went so far over the top in their coverage and rhetoric that I will no longer visit them? I was responding to a comment by Krisken @ 35 and was very respectful, what gives?

If we cannot name those who were so over the top in their coverage, I cannot possibly see how this problem can be resolved and we can move toward a more tolerant discourse in the future. We can call out Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage and that ilk and Lord knows, they need to be called out but so do those that profess to be progressives and fall into the same trap
and have such a bias that no opposing views are tolerated.

Our spam filter is a finicky thing. We don't always know what trips it. I've fixed it.

Jeffrey, I guess we have to start wrapping things up and I thank you so much for joining us here and bringing up an issue that I do think needs greater awareness.

As we move towards November, keeping in mind the way that the right wing will frame things to keep people afraid and get them to vote outside of their interests (read: for John McCain), what should we be looking for with McCain's campaign and his surrogates? Especially now since he's shaken up his staff and has people from the Bush campaign who were only too happy to smear McCain during the 2000 election working for him. How do you suggest we confront this and reframe the discussion?

In forums such as these and other news sites and blogs, there seems to be an easy response to a violent action by another violent action (because of the anonimity of the internet, I suppose), what actions can a site moderator take that doesn't hinder the "freedom of expression" of others vs. the need to reign in this kind of rhetoric?

Also, in unmoderated forums and postings, how can we difuse the violentspeak?

yes, thanks Jeffrey! Good luck with your new book!

~and thanks to C&L for setting this up and nicole for moderating~

Yes, Jeffrey, thanks very much for spending time with us. Now I'm off on my 22 mile trip to the liquor store to buy my wine for the week. I live in the twilight zone otherwise known as a dry county in Arkansas. Arrrgghh!! Looking forward to reading your book.

angelo Says:

For the right, using violent speech is a way of reaching the inarticulate majority in this country. Thus, violent speech merely indicates that our country is undereducated. Elevating the conversation just amounts to letting the conservatives have all the airtime. George Bush betrayed this country and killed innocent people. So tell me if this is violent language:

[deleted–yes it is and it violates commenting policy.]

This rational recommendation is indeed violent, but that is hardly scaring anyone. The real problem is that it will never actually happen.

The point isn't that the violent act is unlikely to happen. Threatening violence is akin to name-calling or demonization on steroids: it says that the object of the threat is so beyond the pale of civilization that the only way to deal with them is by vigilante-style justice. The person issuing the threat has stake out a position that is so extreme that there is no point in even talking to them: rather like "your for us or against us!" (from the Shrub's upcoming book Diplomacy for Total Morons and Psychopaths; the first release will be in board-book format).

Welcome, Jeff.

As a pacifist and as someone who teaches reading and writing to young people, I'll be anxious to read this book and put what's in it to good use.

Maybe all of us here can start practicing what's being preached here, and think of some new and more creative ways to get our message across, instead of using this very same kind of language. I don't see too much of it here, but it is rampant elsewhere.

We should be better than that.

Bluesage @ 43:

Kriskin @ 35

I would respectfully disagree with you on that point. It became very dangerous on most forums to not be an Obama supporter and any questioning of his positions was deflected by accusations of racism and worse. This was not just on the internet but MSNBC almost morphed into the "liberal" version of Fox News. Because of this primary season I no longer watch any cable news and I no longer visit sites like Huff Post, Americablog and the most disappointing was Buzzflash where I bought a lot of books and other premiums. I blame this on the Culture of Bush where this kind of rhetoric and total lack of respect is acceptable.

lol, I don't know how I missed your post! Lost in the ether while I was scrolling through, I guess.

I would respond that while the primary season was heating up, there were rabid supporters on both sides calling each other names, including shouts of racism and sexism. In the mainstream media, there was sexism and racism. I personally was disappointed with how people were unable to focus on the candidates subtle differences and levels of achievement as opposed to the little issues that had no bearing on how they would lead the nation.

My point, however, was that the rabid fans were more than happy to be verbally abusive to those they opposed, whether they were Clinton supporters or Obama supporters. It's easy to forget, even a month after the primary season is over, that words like cultist, kool-aid drinkers, Clintonista's, Obomamoron's, and other comments were running wild in even these comment sections.

sorry everyone, but I say while they are down for the count, kick 'em in the head and hope they go in a coma for a very long time ... these "folks" that participate in this kind of "engagement" in todays' American political wrasslin' match for the feable minds of the majority out there who don't know anything or can't quite figure it all out.... must be thrown out of the ring and disgraced... for God's sake, they deserve it for driving the country into the ground... The bottom line is this... get as mean and vicious as they are. It's the only thing they will understand. Expose the phoneys for what they truly are - liars.

"I know that reading Outright Barbarous has changed the way I’ve thought about framing the posts I do here. I don’t want to contribute to the violent rhetoric and I think we’ve become so inured to it (War on Christmas, anyone?) that it was disconcerting to realize how easily you fall into using it."

Nicole, you kick so much ass! errr, wait, that's a bit violent, huh? I guess I mean you are truly an enlightened individual with a sense of introspection that I greatly admire, and sorely miss in the people in my town. Thank You for being a bloggy-hero! ^_^

And thank you, sir Jeffrey, for writing a book I'm sure to devour in the next few days, after my paycheck allows the purchase. :) BTW, I *heart* your comment about Buchannan, he really is quite twisted... and to put it so concisely in a single paragraph without being totally rude and offensive (as I probably would, in my honest flaws LOL) is just so sw33t! This post really brightened my day.

Anyone else ever notice that these folks all have the same advertisers??? Is there a connection to what they say and the advertisers? Silly???

Tucker claims he beat someone up?

I just don't see it. Guys who talk that big tend to be humongous pussies. I don't see Tucker squaring off in his bowtie for some Jiu Jitsu.