Bachmann’s ‘armed and dangerous’ becomes example of ‘toxic political environment’
Monday, January 10, 2011 at 1:18 pm
- 12 Comments
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s statement saying she wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous” during a radio interview in 2009 has become a target of liberals in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona this weekend. Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann’s neighbor to the south, said such statements have consequences, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used it as an example of the “climate of hate.”
In March 2009 on WWTC, Bachmann said, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”
As Americans search for answers as to why a 22-year old would open fire at a political event, many politicians and pundits have pointed to the increase in violence-tinged rhetoric, mainly (although not exclusively) from the conservative end of the spectrum. It’s mainly liberals making that leap — law enforcement authorities have yet to release details that might shed light on the motives of the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner.
Rep. Keith Ellison told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:
“We’ve gotten so immune to it, and it doesn’t really rank in terms of priority because it’s just so ordinary, so regular,” Ellison said. “But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.”
Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” in response to President Barack Obama’s energy plans.
Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.
“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” Ellison said.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times notes that there is room for debate in American politics, but not for “eliminationist rhetoric”:
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter12 Comments
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 2:16 pm
And I ask the question again: If the likes of Bachmann and Palin eliminate the “colorful’ (trying to be respectable here) rhetoric, what remains? What else do they bring to the table? What skills, what abilities, what insight?
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
Just in case some of you in the political arena out there don’t understand what “armed and dangerous” means’ it’s telling us to be armed by being well informed and to be dangerous by being active and showing support for issues of concern to us. Using words that people in war mongering society can understand and relate to has been a tactic used on Capitol Hill since the first brick was laid there.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 2:51 pm
CLIP: ” there isn’t any place for eliminationist (another made up word, my insert) rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.” Pauly, Pauly, Pauly; You should really direct this statement to your brothers and sisters on Capitol Hill. Especially to the CIA.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 5:06 pm
The violent rhetoric isn’t even half the problem. Ideas that used to be considered schizophrenic paranoia are now validated by our leaders. The Government IS trying to set up re-education camps. Anti-Americans HAVE infiltrated the congress. The President IS a communist.
All of these things may have been said for generations by protesters on both sides, but they are now being said by leaders. What was paranoia is legitimized a main stream fact.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
Don’t worry, Michelle. Anyone who would be frightened by phrases like “armed and dangerous” wouldn’t be voting for the daddy party anyway so there’s no down-side to such language for republican politicians.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
Don’t worry Dennis, we don’t consider you a sentient human.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 9:19 pm
Michele LOVES THIS!!! Our Dumb ass Congress Woman thinks that this was the BEST THING that has EVER HAPPENED… FOX wont EVER question her on her EXTREMIST views… That dumb whore!
Pingback posted January 11, 2011 @ 4:49 am
[...] Bachmann’s ‘Armed and Dangerous’ Becomes Example of ‘Toxic Political Environment’. Read more [...]
Pingback posted January 30, 2011 @ 11:51 pm
[...] to be “armed and dangerous” in revolutionary confrontation with their government, as related by Andy Birkey in The Minnesota Independent: In March 2009 on WWTC, Bachmann said, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this [...]
Pingback posted January 31, 2011 @ 7:35 pm
[...] to be “armed and dangerous” in revolutionary confrontation with their government, as related by Andy Birkey in The Minnesota Independent: In March 2009 on WWTC, Bachmann said, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this [...]
Comment posted March 16, 2011 @ 9:08 am
bachman needs attention and will do anything to get it
just like dennis
they both hardly ever make any sense
always wanting controversy,, can’t agree to disagree , and move forward
a pitiful way to live life and take people down with them
and then so hard to ignore them
a better choice of words could have been used but its an attention grabber
so so so sad that if she can’t refrain from using a better vocabulary,
in such tough times maybe a bar of soap . as not to rile people for no reason
got to get that press michelle as the only reason they want you is
so when you screw up , they the press can run with it
its not your brain there looking for , its your stupid comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
