MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan not only decided it was a good idea to have on far-left cartoonist Ted Rall to discuss his new book The Anti-American Manifesto, which calls for the left to consider violent revolution if its aims aren’t met, but Ratigan overtly endorsed revolution and implicitly endorsed considering violence.
If this were on Fox News, the media would be blowing a fuse. It better get working on this one. If it’s suspension-worthy for an obiously left-wing host to give campaign donations to politicians, what is it when one quasi-endorses considering overthrowing the government via the gun?
Here’s Ratigan introducing his segment (via NewsBusters’ transcript):
RATIGAN: Welcome back. We are here with a very disconcerting question. Are things in our country so bad that it might be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes, the only question is how to do it. From the wrongful wars to the corrupt economy to the special interests and the six industries that control every politician in this country, the political system itself, gerrymandering, 75% of all districts weren’t even up for grabs last week. You call that a competitive market?
To clear our dire problems may require even more drastic solutions. And our next guest, cartoonist and author Ted Rall, targets the day-to-day absurdities in Washington through political cartoons printed in newspapers across the country, but now he’s tackling something bigger. The need for real change and real action, perhaps even through violence, or at least the threat thereof. It’s the subject of his new book, the “Anti American Manifesto”. Ted, nice to see you. What do you mean with that title?
Yeah, good to see you, Ted. Here are some softballs for you.
Fox News’s insane Glenn Bleck, while he’s gone way, way overboard with violent imagery and rhetoric, at least hasn’t gotten quite that explicit.
Leaving aside the dubious wisdom of even inviting on your program somebody advocating considering violence, if you’re going to do so, you at least need to go adversarial with them (I’m thinking old-school Phil Donahue show-how-they’re-nuts style). But this is as friendly as interviews get (emphasis mine):
RATIGAN: If you were to look at the way government changes, political process being the most preferable, although sometimes totally ineffective or destructive, the bond and financial markets, certainly an opportunity for those to intervene in this country, and force meaningful reformation, passive resistance and the end game being violence, why do you go to your book to the category 4, if you will, government change, which is violence?
RALL: In the “Anti-American Manifesto”, I argue that violence is the last case scenario. It’s the worst case, nobody wants it. It’s easier to go other routes. Obviously going through the political system is best. But we’ve seen for the last 2 years, since the economy melted down, that neither the Democrats nor Republicans nor any possible third party is poised to step in. We know that the financial markets are getting increasingly monopolized, and they’re in bed with the duopoly. As you showed at the opening of the hour, with the 1% of the country owning 24% of the income and it’s just getting worse. That process is going to accelerate. In terms of passive resistance, the american left has been very peaceful since the early ’70s, since the Kent State shootings, And where has it gotten us? Millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. What did it do?
See, there’s a fundamental problem with advocating violent revolution in the United States of America. I can’t believe I have to spell this out to newsmen affiliated with the National Broadcasting Corporation.
so, you're for censorship when the rest of the country is talking about the violent revolution being fomented at fox then?
#1 Posted by covered, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 04:47 PM
"...that betrays a basic faith in the people, one that implies that it’s acceptable for a minority to revolt to institute what they think everybody ought to think."
A particular minority that chose to revolt allows you to write unencumbered by the King's crown. This is not a clear cut up or down issue.
#2 Posted by Pietro_F, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 05:13 PM
First:
"If this were on Fox News, the media would be blowing a fuse. It better get working on this one. If it’s suspension-worthy for an obiously left-wing host to give campaign donations to politicians, what is it when one quasi-endorses considering overthrowing the government via the gun?"
having guest that advocate violence "only as a last resort" is fox's trade. They still employ "Shoot federal agents in the head" G. Gordon Liddy, you know.
Second off, where does it say gun? Look at the transcript. Gun isn't there. Violence is. There is a difference. In Europe, when people try to cut social security and implement austerity measures, you get violence. No guns, but violence.
In America, we get have activists doing peaceful protests and the government doesn't hesitate to round them up and search their property.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/27/fbi_raids_homes_of_anti_war
This is during the longest and most expensive wars in American history, one where if you said the wrong things, people like Michael Reagan would start talking about... shooting you in the head.
Violence on the left has a history, a recent one. You saw it during the WTO demonstrations in 1999, you saw in in Bolivia when the government sold water rights to Bechtel, you saw it in Argentina as their debt bubble popped and the people did not retreat into their homes and accept the loss of their country - they banged their pots and pans and stood firm in the streets as the state did violence unto them. They revolted.
And its goddamn time people in America revolted a little, because the political system in america is revolting, which brings us to third.
"Where once Americans were subjugated by their countrymen across the pond and not given the right to freely choose their own government—we have that right now and have had it for more than two centuries. You can talk about the pernicious influence that corporations have on elections and on elected politicians, but ultimately Americans—if they want to—can rise up and throw these people out of office. 50.01 percent wins elections. If you lose, suck it up, hone your arguments, and fight (metaphorically, of course) harder. It is not acceptable to have a journalist on a major network talking to nutjobs talking about violence, even qualifying it as a “last resort,” as if this is a legitimate option."
Third, in America you have two parties that play musical chairs. They are not afraid of the electorate, they know that good Americans vote every two to four years and, depending on the results, the politicians keep their office or benefit from the favors they did while in office. They do not respond to the will of the electorate, especially since the electorate is outspent and will be even more outspent in future by the rich.
In a working democracy, where politicians fear the public instead of attempt to manipulate them, the passive citizen voting during election time while honing her arguments and sucking it up would be tolerable.
But we don't live in democracies anymore. We have plutonomies.
http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766
And you cannot respond to a plutonomy by sucking it up for 4 years while they consolidate ever more power for themselves and less for everybody else.
No Retreat.
We cannot retreat on global warming and pollution. Retreat did not influence Nixon to create the EPA, active unintimidated revolution did. I am not an advocate for violence, or at least not when there are acceptable alternatives, but more and more our political alternatives are not "flubbed", they are compromised, broken, and hopeless. And Martin Luther King spoke on such blockages:
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 07:04 PM
And why the hell would you use god awful Newsbusters as the source of your transcript when you have the transcript button on the MSNBC video right beside your subtitles button.
Did you skip your coffee today Ryan?
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 07:09 PM
When I think of gun toting citizens, the last thing that comes to mind is pot smoking, hippie Liberals. No, this image of people in camouflage is strictly created and owned by right wing nut jobs. This is all blowing smoke. The people who will fire the first shot will be hard core conservatives.
#5 Posted by Palfey, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 09:31 PM
Mr Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC describes himself as a conservative, on the record.
Just because he is on MSNBC, doesn't mean he is a "pot-smoking liberal." Joe Scarborough of MSNBC is also a conservative who has a show on MSNBC. Okay?
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 11:13 PM
Condoning or excusing aggressive violence is not cool. Too bad Mr. Chittum, in speaking against said uncool things, actually promotes something even more pernicious and insidious. His apparent philosophy on the role of government and the "power of the people" is quite funny but mostly sad.
- Mr. Chittum would imply that democracy, in and of itself, is a solution to tyranny. Democracy, in fact, facilitates and perpetuates the tyranny. Nowhere in recorded history has "democracy" reversed the progress of tyranny; yet it is those who no longer buy the democracy fraud whom Mr. Chittum labels "insane."
Good luck ending the immoral, unconstitutional federal wars, e.g., drug, terror, and poverty (e.g., the devaluation of non-politically-connected people's wealth by the printing press and other central-planning evil) via the ballot box!
- Mr. Chittum (like too many brainwashed victims of govt/MSM "schooling") believes that the United States is supposed to be a "democracy" in the first place. What is so taboo about the word REPUBLIC? The USA is supposed to be a constitutional republic, no?
Of course, just mention the very effective and constitutionally proper concepts of nullification, secession, and other peaceful resistance, and you are likely to be labeled a kook, nutjob, and so forth. Thus, you will be cast out and your voice (vote?) will be even less effective toward fundamental change.
BTW: Only nutjobs seriously consider owning and carrying a loaded gun for self-defense. You see, only the government is allowed to use violence against individuals and groups. Individuals are not allowed to defend themselves against others — esp., against "our" beloved "government" of "our democracy."
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 02:44 AM
Hey, Chittum, fess up. Are you pissed off at Dylan Ratigan because he speaks out against Keynesian economic planning and the Federal Reserve [sic]?
PS: I'm not sure how my comment came out in red hyperlink, but oh well. Nice!
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 02:55 AM
Ted Rall is free to speak his mind and share his opinions no matter how distasteful they may be to others. I think the point Ryan is trying to make is that it should not be the place of a supposed journalist to encourage these opinions and make no attempt to question them, especially if they suggest violence as a solution.
Do those on the far right really believe that Obama is a socialist puppet of George Soros bent on the destruction of our economy and democratic system? Do those on the far left really believe that there is a shadow government run by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey bent on the subjugation of the poor and destruction of the middle class? Really? Really?
Its time for those in power on both sides of our political spectrum to come out and state unequivocally that they will not be swayed by the extremes of their base and that they will not tolerate violence or threats of violence.
It's time for the middle, the independent minded in this country to stand up for sane and civil discourse and to look for ways to move the country forward, not to the left, not to the right, but forward.
Stop listening to Fox News, MSNBC, Drudge, HuffPo and look for balanced sources of news and information.
#9 Posted by Jon R., CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 07:55 AM
First off, its a crime to advocate the violent over through of the government. The source is immaterial not matter if it comes from Fox or NPR. Its the same. This is not about journalism, its about punditry gone while. If I were the CEO of this company, that journalist would be on the street and I would certainly expect that most people would understand. The author here is correct, if you dont like it, get out the vote. If you think that guns will make it better, you have never seen what it actually does to people.
#10 Posted by RAPinDC, CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 05:56 PM
Ryan, I hope it was an unintentional misrepresentation as it is really the only way to tie Rall’s “revolution” to the Tea Party, but you completely missed Rall’s argument. Rall isn’t arguing that its time for revolution nor is voicing his displeasure with electoral politics in his “manifesto”. He is making the case that we have already crossed the revolutionary threshold and its only a matter of time before a complete collapse of the system leads those who have been preparing for it to assume power.
Theoretically, people might form intentional communities (the current term for communes) and/or polyamorous clans of one hundred to one hundred fifty in Ecotopia (the term for a theoretical independent Pacific Northwest), living off the land, all local and sustainable-like. But these utopian societies won't be able to count on being left alone to live peacefully. The millions of partisans who follow Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and right-wing televangelists happen to be the best-armed people around, and they despise just about everyone who doesn't think and pray like them. They will see collapse as affirmation of their beliefs that secular liberalism is destructive. They will also see it as an opportunity to create a new, ordered world atop the ashes. They will act to stop teenage sluts from getting abortions, teach niggers a lesson, and slaughter those spics, dots, and everyone else who doesn't fit into their vision of what and who is right. Anarchists may opt out of revolution, but counterrevolution will come to them.
These groups, as Rall puts it, are Neo-Nazi’s, Aryian brotherhood, christianists, militia types and other reactionaries that have been preparing and will seize power when the time comes … as he is certain it will. What Rall is calling for is a “preemptive strike” against his perceived enemies modeling this (counter)-revolution after such boy scouts as ELF and Al-Qaeda.
The Tea Pary has never called for preemptive assassination of its perceived political “enemies” (a term Obama recently used) and is entirely focused around electoral politics. To compare the Tea Party and a wannabe revolutionary douChe like Rall is not inaccurate but a little bit sleazy.
And on a side not, anybody who takes Rall seriously and charges off to the barricades I am sure he’ll be right behind you.
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 09:04 PM
One more point that someone already touched on:
Taxes or health care, say, are not tyrannical if they’re enacted by democratically elected representatives. If you don’t accept this, you don’t accept the basic concept of democracy.
Majority tyranny, no matter how wide a consensus it has from an electoral body, is exactly why the country was founded as a REPUBLIC as the basic concept of democracy was roundly rejected by the founding fathers.
there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - James Madison
#12 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 09:10 PM
Mike H's quote comes from a context and it would be good to read the full context before judging it or Dylan Ratigan for having him as a guest
http://www.alternet.org/books/148796/as_the_country_falls_apart,_it's_time_for_our_revolution
(didn't Beck recommend an anti-semetic historian to his listeners just recently? Oh, that wasn't featured on Newsbusters, so there's no need to point out he's off the deep end in the antisemitic pool. I guess we won't mention the ADL condemning Beck for antisemitic stereotypes either. Not newsbusters worthy.)
Like I said, I don't like Ted Rall. He's as subtle and as soft spoken as a Marxist Michael Savage, but there's no reason to freak out about the armed leftist insurrection he might be inciting just because he got a soft interview.
Especially when you do have an insurrectionist element on right wing radio, the militia movement within the tea party, and FOX. And that audience has guns and a history of rampages.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007230022
Sorry, I didn't have a newsbusters link for that story either.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 01:30 PM
And that audience has guns and a history of rampages.
I couldnt agree more.
Sarah Jane Moore, “Squeaky” Fromme, The Weather Underground, ELF, De Mau Mau (who Bill Ayers dedicated his book to), Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Guerilla Family, Black Liberation Army, Angela Davis, etcetera.
#14 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 02:42 PM
Yeah, 50 years ago, during the Vietnam War, those guys were a real problem.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 05:31 PM
Yeah, 50 years ago, during the Vietnam War, those guys were a real problem
Well, I would argue that they are more of a problem today as they hold positions of power in the media, academia and congress.
#16 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 06:00 PM
If they aren't driving with cars full of guns on the hunt for people their media have identified as "blood sucking vampires who need a stake through their heart", then we don't have comparable problems.
Even Ted Rall doesn't use that kind of language. In the example you cited he's making light of pie in the sky "Deep-green types" who " fantasize about a collapse scenario that will save the world without anyone having to lift a finger". Ted Rall, one of the worst speakers on the left, isn't as bad as a milqetoast Sean Hannity.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 09:06 PM
Thanks for starting to call out leftist rhetoric, too. Rall famously referred to some of the 9/11 widow as 'whores' due to the publicity they got. When the 'Jersey Girls' were criticized by Ann Coulter on the same account, panties bunched up all over medialand, though she never went as far as Rall did in her language. Rall is not, in medialand, a marginal figure, but is instead well-respected within the stunted 'political cartoonist' community.
One of my theories is that a salutory effect of the Fox News/talk radio 'alternate' media culture is that it has forced mainstream consideration of the rules of 'bias' and 'extremism' in news organizations. If you are NPR or CNN or CJR, you cannot, in other words, criticize Fox without coming up with rules for bad behavior that are routinely violated by figures on the left side, in journalism and (especially) the entertainment industry. Limbaugh, after all, still refers to himself as an entertainer, like Rosie O'Donnell or Joy Behar or Alec Baldwin or any of a number of entertainers who routinely express wishes for death, or violence for people with whose politics they disagree, or use terms like bitch and whore against female members of same. Without criticism from their colleagues for helping pollute the civic culture.
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 14 Nov 2010 at 06:30 PM
"If this were on Fox News, the media would be blowing a fuse. "
Well, now we get to see a test in the field. Glen Beck, speaking on his radio show, says the military has a responsibility to overthrow the civilian government if it should ever "violate the constitution", which is what the Obama Administration is creeping towards.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/beck-constitutional-scholar.html
This is language directed towards the Oath Keepers, real people with real guns who are being primed towards picking them up to "protect the constitution".
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers
It's not like Glen Beck doesn't know what his words do to his audiences. It's not like the Tides Foundation gunman kept his Glen Beck fetish a secret. He's putting military coup out there as acceptable.
And so far, I haven't seen any fuses blown.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 08:32 AM
"If it’s suspension-worthy for an obiously left-wing host to give campaign donations to politicians, what is it when one quasi-endorses considering overthrowing the government via the gun?"
First clause = violation of an employer's contractual agreement with an employee.
Second clause = Free speech protected by the First Amendment.
And you write for CJR? That's an enormously depressing thought, since you appear to have learned absolutely nothing about either journalism or review.
#20 Posted by David in NYC, CJR on Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 05:38 PM