David Sirota Complains about Hate, Chris Kelly spews it.

On OpenLeft, David Sirota complains about some anonymous hate mail he has received. He quotes from one letter wherein there are terms like "drivel", "drooling buffoons", "incredibly stupid". I leave it to you to decide if this is "hateful" or merely "direct and colorful". Sirota makes one very good point:

"the political discourse in this country has gotten toxically coarse to the point where we're not having any kind of discussion about substance at all."

Of course, he blames this on the Right. Consider the first response to his column, by "the new", (an anonymous name) which has received high ratings (that 4.00/4 you see means 4 people voted favorably for the comment).

"I know it must be rough dealing with this shit, even from anonymous knuckle-dragging lunatics."

Good to see an intelligent response that gets to the substance of the issues. :-)


Over at Huff Post, here's a post by Chris Kelly (he posts there about once a week). He rips on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who suggested that the Democrats should not politicize Teddy Kennedy's funeral, especially about health care. Since they took a lot of grief for (supposedly) politicizing Wellstone's funeral, that seems like decent advice. How does Chris Kelly respond to the substance of the issues, about why Democrats should use the funeral to push for need health care reform? He claims that at the 1996 Republican Convention he bumped into Ingraham and she showed anguish for a "nanosecond". And, in that nanosecond, Chris Kelly, world renowned psycho-analyst, saw the "face of the most hated child in the meanest fourth grade in the world". He concludes that Ingraham is a sicko who was traumatized in grade school. "This hateful wounded second-rate soul. I hope she finds peace."

Kelly's post is completely non-factual, hateful, a deeply deeply personal attack, non-constructive, with no substance or discussion of the issues. And most of the responses / comments to his blog are worse. Kelly's other Huff Posts are similar or worse - he really has it in for Ingraham, and in hating her, he screws himself up into a rabid left wing version of Ann Coulter. I won't bother to link to his posts cause I don't want to send them any traffic. Search yourself.


Returning to Sirota's column, he adds

"Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy."

I'm not sure if this is a purely 21st century problem. With the blogosphere and the decline of traditional media, it's probably more apparent. But it isn't new. On March 9, 1830, Senator Edward Livingston of Louisiana gave a famous speech, after the even more famous speeches of Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster debating nullification. (Warning - these are long speeches. I recently learned of these from Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson). Livingston wanted to warn against too much partisanship, to

"mark the difference between the necessary, and, if I may so express it, the legitimate parties existing in all free Governments, founded on differences of opinion in fundamental principles, ... and that spirit of dissension into which they are apt to degenerate"

As he continues, his "spirit of dissension" seems the very antithesis of St. Paul's Love, it

creates imaginary, and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue—denies every merit to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs—publicly imputes them to its adversaries: poisons domestic happiness with its dissensions; assails the character of the living with calumny, and, invading the very secrets of the grave with its viperous slanders, destroys the reputations of the dead; harangues in the market place; disputes at the social board; distracts public councils with unprincipled propositions and intrigues; embitters their discussions with invective and recrimination, and degrades them by personalities and vulgar abuse; seats itself on the bench; clothes itself in the robes of justice; soils the purity of the ermine, and poisons the administration of justice in its source; mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of Heaven, war, pestilence, and famine, as preferable alternatives to party defeat: blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled, and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friends as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing; rushes on the sword; braves the dangers of the ocean; and would not be turned from its mad career by the majesty of Heaven itself, armed with its tremendous thunders.

Beware of the Spirit of Dissension. You will see a lot of it in today's political debates.