This Horrendous Crime is Clearly the Fault of My Political Opponents

|

Frazier Glenn Cross
Johnson County, Kan., Sheriff's Office

Which crime is the fault of my political enemies? Take your pick.

The most recent crime attributed to somebody's political enemies is the Kansas City Jewish community center shooting. Glenn Miller/Frazier Glenn Cross, the alleged murderer in that incident, has very distinct views of the sort that you might expect of a man who yells "heil Hitler" when arrested and is a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. That is, he's completely fucking out there with nothing more than an opportunistic link to mainstream politics in this country (he ran for office as both a Democrat and Republican).

But why the hell not lay his crime at the feet of former Rep. Ron Paul (and use that as an excuse to dredge up old attacks against the guy) because Miller said unsolicited (by Paul) nice things about him?

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok, who has already attributed opposition to President Barack Obama to racism, went on MSNBC to link Miller's crime to a supposed surge in hate groups fueld by white fears over the "browning of the American population."

Or maybe the nutty neo-Nazi's crime was really the work of the lefty Nation's Max Blumenthal, who is critical of Israel.

This kind of crazy has to be a one-off, right?

Nope. Hanging nasty crimes on political opponents is a popular pastime, with conservatives and the Tea Party as the main recipients in recent years of the most bogus links to shootings, bombings, and the like.

The Boston bombing may have been the work of the the Tsarnaev brothers, two Muslim extremists from Chechnya, but that didn't stop Michael Moore from turning it into right-wing terrorism. "Tax Day. Patriots Day," he Tweeted.

NBC's Luke Russert also thought that was a fair conclusion.

Well, OK; Infowars said the U.S. government did it. But really, that was Infowars.

And Jared Loughner's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was somehow the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Those connections came even as some of those making the charges, like Slate's Jacob Weisberg, admitted the shooter was "crazy" and probably suffered from "schizophrenia"—characteristics that would seem to take political intentions out of the equation.

Occasionally, righties get to return the favor and link their opponents to crimes—like the shooting at the Family Research Council, which Michelle Malkin hung around the neck of left-wing criticism of the organization. Political opportunism, like crime, has no intrinsic ideology of its own. But, as of late, this has mostly been an intellectually lazy sport for liberals and progressives, who see an opportunity to slam opponents without having to expend too much brain sweat on actually examining ideas and arguments.

You know who was really responsible for those crimes? The individuals who committed them, not some thoughts they may or may not have shared with people who didn't hurt anybody.

Below, see an excerpt from The Independents in which Reason's own Matt Welch takes on political smears and intellectual laziness.

NEXT: Matthew Feeney Discusses Rand Paul on the Jerry Doyle Show Tonight at 8:30 P.M. ET

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. Report abuses.

  1. Protip: Moral equivalence is a fallacy.

  2. Mark Potok is mad at someone……? Must be time for another SPLC pledge drive.

    1. His boss got ultra-rich in the “hate group” game but he hasn’t yet.

      (Other than the SPLC, how many US “charities” have overseas bank accounts?)

  3. Well, OK; Infowars said the U.S. government did it. But really, that was Infowars.

    Would you bet your net worth, with odds, that Tsarnev or his associates weren’t in contact with FBI handlers? It has been noted by decidedly non-conspiracy types that the FBI is engaged in a full-on effort to deport any and every resident foreign national that ever came into contact with Tsarnev. Except for that guy they killed outright.

  4. Buttplug noted earlier = Peter Bergen has gotten in on the game:

    “U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists”

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/…..-shooting/

    which is sad, because he’s a decent journo when it comes to Al-Qaeda stuff. I’ve read his books at least, and they were good. Not ‘Steve Coll’-good, but good. Throwing his credibility behind bullshit mud-slinging like this is a waste.

    Going by the intellectual standards of the piece, one might note:
    “Slipping in Bathtub Even More Deadly than Right-Wing Extremists”

    1. The way they got that number was counting everything since 2002. So yes, if you throw out 9/11, rightwing extremists are a bigger threat than AQ.

      1. …”The way they got that number was counting everything since 2002″…

        Does cherry picking pay a living wage?

        1. Depends on what cherries you pick I guess.

      2. The way they got that number was counting everything since 2002. So yes, if you throw out 9/11, rightwing extremists are a bigger threat than AQ.

        They also ignore the fact that FBI statistics show that left wing terrorism is more common than right wing terrorism. So even if they hadn’t absurdly ignored 9/11, the stats still don’t show what they think they show.

        1. The CNN article notes that there have been zero deaths from lefty terrorists in the time period where 34 right-wing deaths occurred.

          1. And yet neither the CNN story nor the linked NAF study provide any details on what exactly gets classified as “right-wing” extremism for us to peruse, study, and critique (aside from Frasier Glenn Cross, who is a National Socialist being labeled as a “right-winger”., but I won’t quarrel with that diagnosis since its commonly accepted even while I strongly disagree with that being akin to anything of the libertarian right). That seems somewhat fishy.

            1. In fairness, it mentions Roeder and Wade Michael Page. But there’s still some 22 murders by right wing terrorists unaccounted for.

              And if a National Socialist is considered a right wing terrorist, why isn’t Nidal Hasan’s “workplace violence” an act of left-wing terrorism?

              1. Neo-Nazis considered right-wing by most people, regardless of whether you disagree or not. Personally, I think they just illustrate how useless the left-right split is. Libertarianism is the polar opposite of Nazism. But I can at least see why they get counted as such. Why would Islamic terrorism be left-wing? It seems to me like something that’s completely outside the American left-right spectrum. I wouldn’t count it as left, nor would I count it as right as Buttplug would.

                I still question their counting though. As I mentioned in the other thread, why isn’t the IRS guy considered left-wing? His manifesto was very anti-capitalist, and he attacked the IRS because the thought the government was colluding with Big Business against the little guy, not because he was a small-government fanatic.

                1. *are

                2. The Nidal Hasan incident was classified as “workplace violence”, not terrorism. Since the left alleges to speak for the working class, his attack on his workplace would be logically associated with an ideology that claims to represent him.

                3. Why should Islamic terrorism be counted as leftwing? Well, certain segments of lefty intellectualism have been playing redical chic games with the likes of Hamas since the 197o’s. So while Islam may not have embraced the Left, the Left has embraced Islamoterror.

                4. The split is stupid for two reasons:

                  1) it’s based off of a seating chart
                  2) if your in the middle in America you shoukd be considered a Constitutionalist

          2. “in time period ”

            How do those cherries taste?

    2. Going by the intellectual standards of the piece, one might note:“Slipping in Bathtub Even More Deadly than Right-Wing Extremists”

      “Unprotected Anal Sex more Deadly than Jihadists”

      Left the mockery begin! C’mon let the creativity flow!

      1. Obama Voters killed more people than Klan Wizards did!

      2. Drinking and Driving: More Deadly Than Jihadists!

        Constructing a Soccer Stadium in Qatar: More Deadly Than Jihadists!

  5. It wouldn’t be Reason without some “the right does it too” equivalencey.

    From the link to the report on Malkin’s comments on Fox News:

    We always hear from left-wing groups after random acts of violence that everybody needs to have more introspection about their words and rhetoric. But they never do that after an attack like what happened yesterday and maybe they should.”

    Referring to specific instances of lefties calling the FRC a “hate group” even after the attack.

    1. It wouldn’t be SIV without selective quoting.

      From the same link to the report on Malkin’s comments on Fox News:

      “‘But it’s not unexpected,’ she continued. ‘Not only did Huffington Post refer to the Family Research Council as a hate group after the fact, but, of course, we had this left wing group, Human Rights Council, which has been on the case of many traditional values, family values groups for years now, referred to FRC as a ‘hate group,’ just 18 hours before the event. And all of that is stoked by another left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which classified FRC as a ‘hate group.'”

      1. You’re just upset Floyd Corkins didn’t succeed in feeding those SoCon haters a last meal of Chick-fil-A.

        1. watch out, the Witchfinder General is after you.

    2. Why would the attack stop the FRC from being a hate group? Does Aurthur Bremer’s assasination attempt mean that George Wallace wasn’t actually a bigot after all?

  6. I blame, as always, Climate Change.

    1. I blame, as always, Climate Change.

      As you should!

    2. Oh, I need to steal that one. That’s *good*.

  7. It’s confirmation bias all the way down. What’s disturbing is how many people want the government to violently crackdown on extremists groups.

    Which includes lumping the Millers of the world into the same category as Oath Keepers and states’ rights supporters.

    Hell, I even saw several up-voted comments on Huffington Post and Raw Story demanding the government violently put down the “insurrection” in Nevada.

    1. Oh man, if they’d gone to guns down there in NV…..things might be very interesting even here right now.

      Progs and guns always amused me. I remember a debate in a poli class about them. This girl just could not seem to comprehend that people like me would not obey a confiscation order. She then explained that it would be compensated confiscation, and I explained that wasn’t the point. She was very confused, very “But but but it would be a law. You have to obey the law”. Thankfully, many a gun show bumper sticker rack has the perfect response for that.

      1. Many of the same people who would think like this would support the actions of those in ‘sanctuary cities’ that would risk arrest to help immigrants in ways that break the law, and not see the tension…

        1. You must spend a lot of time reading a lot of stupid right wing websites.

          Either that, or you spend a lot of time reading lefty websites that do little but talk about what the big mouths on the right are saying.

        2. Many of the same people who would think like this would support the actions of those in ‘sanctuary cities’ that would risk arrest to help immigrants in ways that break the law, and not see the tension…

          Wow Bo-Bo, thanks for posting something totally unrelated to the topic.

          Goddamnit you’re a fucking tool.

  8. Why is it that every goober that stands up and screams “white supremacy” is such a blindingly obvious bit of evidence to the contrary?

    1. Yeah, it’s problematic.

      I don’t see how white supremacists can see Hitler as a hero, either.

      Even if you believe all the rot he believed, the man led his country into a disastrous war, and he left his country a smoldering pile of ash that was occupied by his enemies–and communist enemies to boot!

      Why would such a loser be your supremacist hero?

      Something about white supremacy appeals to people who easily imagine themselves victims and have intense feelings of powerlessness. I’m guessing that’s the reason so many losers embrace it–it’s easy to feel victimized and powerless when you’re a loser.

      1. Well, Hitler did come to power selling the idea that the German people, and German culture were ‘at the mercy’ of the capitalist Jewry.

        1. “Well, Hitler did come to power selling the idea that the German people, and German culture were ‘at the mercy’ of the capitalist Jewry.”

          Outside of the Hungarians, most every nation west of China and north of India has had a demagogue do so at one time or another.
          And I could be wrong about the Hungarians.

    2. People who are actually superior on their own merits don’t have to depend on their racial background to feel important. The only people who would be attracted to such a movement are ones who think they’re owed more respect then they actually get.

      1. See also the whole Black Athena/”Cleopatra was black”/”the Greeks stole their culture from Africa” crowd.

        1. You forgot that Europe as a whole stole their entire culture from Africa. Even by prog standards this never made a damn bit of sense,how can you “steal” culture so that the original culture no longer has it or any memory/ way to recreate it? Last I checked more than one person can have an idea at the same time. Mexico still has tequila, and China still has kung fu.

          1. Indeed. Perhaps the fact that it never made sense is why it sputtered out. Although for all I know they teach it in school.

            1. no, it hasn’t.

      2. I’ve always found it ironic that white supremist are the people other white people see as lowly scum. It’s like even if whites were superior (and they’re not) those guys wouldn’t even be included in that grouping. Also, that dude looks perfectly sane. Wonder what happened?

    3. I’d say the HBD community, which is routinely labeled as “white supremacist” defies that “evidence to the contrary” fairly wholeheartedly. We’re talking about the Derbyshire/Taki’s Mag crowd. Whether or not one agrees with their takes, they certainly don’t want for intellectual rigor.

  9. Lets hit it up one time man. WOw.

    http://www.GotsDatAnon.tk

    1. HIT IT UP! ONE TIME! FOR THE BOT!

      1. Wow. Jack Frapp is jsut NOT gonna like that.

        http://www.botlove.com/NTTAWWT

  10. This Horrendous Crime is Clearly the Fault of My Political Opponents

    I say:

    This Horrendous Crime is Clearly the act committed by a member of My Political Opponents

  11. I do think that much or all of the “He’s connected to the left!” charges from the right are reflexive/defensive: conservatives are weary of having every nut designated a “right-winger,” so they now jump on every case that might be the other way around.

    1. Saying that he’s connected to the left is a stretch.

  12. So what he ran as both Democrat and Republican.

    George Wallace was a Democrat.

    Rudy Guilliani was a Democrat turned Republican.

  13. A truly superior individual protects those weaker and/or less capable than s/he is. The need to brutalize such people is a weakness, a sign of inferiority.

    So we’re left with two possibilities. Either the supremacists aren’t superior at all, or they aren’t superior at all.

  14. “But, as of late, this has mostly been an intellectually lazy sport for liberals and progressives, ”

    Intellecutally lazy liberals and progressives – is there any other kind?

  15. Is this the “Wake up, white people” guy Howard Stern publicized?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.