If Phillips's rhetoric is the weirdest, it is not the worst. Phillips has no power and, these days, little influence. The same cannot be said for Bill Clinton.
This is what the president of the United States said in a widely praised speech at Michigan State's graduation: "I would like to say something to the paramilitary groups and to others who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from within our country or beyond our borders, but from our own government....I am well aware that most of you have never violated the law of the land. I welcome the comments that some of you have made recently condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City....But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy." (Emphasis added.)
"There have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy." Clinton may start with the "to be sures"--acknowledging that his nameless opponents are law-abiding and condemn the bombing--but he ends with guilt by association. Anyone who "believe[s] the greatest threat to America" comes from the government might as well be a terrorist. After all, they're on the same philosophical team.
Just who is purveying hate and division now? Just who is using wild words? Just who is paranoid, spinning out conspiracy theories built on blurring distinctions and imagining "links"?
Clinton continues: "Do people who work for the government sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. They are human. Almost every American has some experience with this--a rude tax collector, an arbitrary regulator, an insensitive social worker, an abusive law officer. As long as human beings make up our government there will be mistakes....But there is no right to resort to violence when you don't get your way. There is no right to kill people. There is no right to kill people who are doing their duty, or minding their own business, or children who are innocent in every way. Those are the people who perished in Oklahoma City. And those who claim such rights are wrong and un-American."
First he makes an amazing declaration coming from an advocate of bigger government and the recipient of public-employee PAC money: "Almost every American" has had some experience with obnoxious, abusive government officials. By shifting the blame to individuals--it's those awful civil servants--he deflects criticism of the system. Don't question the law, he suggests, blame the enforcer.
He then cleverly moves the argument from whether government power is something to be feared--obviously not, since the problem is a few rotten workers--to whether violence against public employees is justified. Here, he lumps together "people who are doing their duty" (the Nuremberg defense), people who are "minding their own business," and "children who are innocent in every way."
It's not clear who advocates killing any of these people under current conditions. But at least in theory they are distinguishable. One can imagine circumstances under which self-defense might be justified against the first group; it's hard to conjure up rationales for attacking either of the other two. But Clinton's rhetorical mode is to blur distinctions.
And to smear by innuendo. By never specifying whom he is attacking--Who exactly claims the right to kill "children who are innocent in every way"? Who claims the right to kill "the people who perished in Oklahoma City"?--Clinton manages to call all of his political opponents murderers and then say he didn't.
He accomplished the same thing with his vague attack on "loud and angry voices." Was he talking about all conservative and libertarian talk radio hosts? G. Gordon Liddy? Or just conspiracy theorists like "Mark from Michigan"? He was in fact smearing them all, but preserving his deniability.
And he does this over and over again. Later in the MSU speech, he says to "all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the government instead of from those who would take away our freedom [which, of course, begs the question]: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong."
Is the issue violence? Conspiracy? Or the audacious claim that government power is a threat to freedom--perhaps, in the post-Cold War era, the greatest threat? Clinton sweeps them all together. Forty-five percent of Americans surveyed in late April told Times Mirror that they "think that the activities of the federal government pose a threat to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the average American." As far as Bill Clinton's rhetorical sleight of hand is concerned, 45 percent of Americans may just possibly advocate blowing up babies.
Clinton is sleazier, if less deft, when he speaks off the cuff. On 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace asked whether the president had any second thoughts about the Waco raid. Clinton never really answered the question, but he did suggest that anyone who questions the government's actions is "making heroes" of the Branch Davidians.
And, he insinuated, raising such questions is tantamount to justifying the Oklahoma City bombing: "I cannot believe that any serious patriotic American believes that the conduct of those people at Waco justifies the kind of outrageous behavior we've seen here at Oklahoma City or the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that we're hearing all across this country today. It's wrong." (Emphasis added.) Asking that government agents be held responsible for their actions--actions that resulted in the deaths of scores of Americans--is, by association, equivalent to blowing up innocent people. Especially if you use "inflammatory rhetoric."
Many commentators have noted that Clinton can't tell the difference between talking and acting. They mean that he substitutes words for deeds, especially in foreign policy, and is shocked when his yammering has no effect.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.17.10 @ 12:40AM|#
dhdh
سهمي|12.11.10 @ 4:47PM|#
asgsag