FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: HOW THE RIGHT TALKS "GUNS" TO UNDERMINE THE DEBATE

(In an ongoing series of posts, I will be discussing how right-wing pundits use violent language and the problems that causes for American political debate.  My new book Outright Barbarous (to be released May 2008) explores this topic in length. -- JF)

One of the most disturbing and disruptive tactics of right-wing pundits is the way they talk about guns to undermine political debate. It is a three-pronged approach that involves (1) invalidating claims by Democrats about contact with in military gunfire, (2) blaming gun violence on Democrats' concern with regulation, and (3) referencing guns in rhetorical threats against Democrats.   As a result, right-wing books and broadcast media routinely talk about guns in ways that define a host of issues in violent terms, rendering that particular topic virtually impossible to discuss.

Ann Coulter's newest syndicated column provides a perfect example of how this approach works.

The inspiration for Coulter's piece ("Hillary: Swiftboated!" March 26, 2008) is a campaign trail mini-scandal wherein Hillary Clinton exaggerated how close she came to experiencing incoming enemy artillery fire during a diplomatic trip to Bosnia while serving as First Lady.

To be sure, Hillary Clinton made a false claim about how close she came to sniper fire, followed by a vaguely credible campaign statement about making a mistake due to fatigue--and the media lambasted her for it.  All that is true and Clinton deserves criticism for it.  Rather than joining that criticism, Coulter uses the new Clinton scandal to go back to the Swiftboat attacks on John Kerry in the last Presidential election.  Accordingly, Coulter frames the Bosnia sniper scandal as more evidence that Democrats lie for political gain about being on the receiving end of gun fire--thereby moving the Swiftboat campaign to a larger context.

Keep in mind that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who launched the smear campaign against Kerry were fined by the government for violating campaign laws--a criminal act--while Kerry proved over and over again that he had been wounded.  But none of that matters to  Coulter whose goal in talking about guns is to undermine the debate itself.

Now, the key here, of course, is to see this column by Coulter as one part of the larger right-wing discussion of guns.  The second part is the ongoing effort to blame Democrats for gun violence in America--not for shooting the guns, but for putting laws on books that cause people to not know how to use guns and to not have them to fire back.  This argument  is familiar to many people as a result of Wayne LaPierre, the  most well-known NRA spokesman, author of multiple books, and regular guest on broadcast media.

This brings us to the third prong in the approach:  rhetorical threats against Democrats.

Also on the NRA roster is Ted Nugent, erstwhile rocker turned right-wing pundit.  Reporting on one of Nugent's public appearances from last year, Rolling Stone Magazine wrote the following:

Renegade right-winger Ted Nugent recently went on a vicious onstage rant in which he threatened the lives of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary,” he continued. “You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming “freedom!”

(Full article here)

(WARNING: video contains language not suitable for children --JF)

Nugent's menacing gesture and repeated threats against the lives of two Democratic candidates is only half the story in the incident.  The other half is the screaming crowd that cheers louder and louder in response to each instance where Nugent holds up his weapon and issues a mock death threat.

The difficulty, of course, is seeing that invalidating Democrats' combat experience, blaming Democrats for gun violence, and threatening Democrats with guns is all part of broad effort by right-wing pundits to frame the debate in violent terms.  It is an effort that succeeds because no response is offered.

In response to Coulter, for example, the key is to frame the Swiftboaters accurately:  they attempt to undermine free and open debate and intimidate Americans from participating in elections.  The response to a Swiftboat campaign is not just to offer the truth about military experience, but to demand that no group be allowed to break the law to control the election.

In response to LaPierre's claims that Democrats' interest in regulation is the cause behind gun violence, it is important to say that America is a nation of laws, not a nation of vigilante justice.  Gun sports can be an excellent way to build character and teach kids responsibility, and hunting is a great American pastime.  But concealed-carry guns warrant strict controls in a country governed by laws and law enforcement. 

And finally, in response to Nugent and similar threats, it is important to insist that freedom of speech is not just about the speaker. It is also about the listener.  In particular, viewers of broadcast radio and TV have a right to be protected from speech that threatens and incites violence.  Many Americans are confused by this distinction, often believing that freedom of speech means anyone has the right to say anything in any situation without repercussion.   That is simply not the case.  The supreme court has always taken an interest in protecting children and viewers from speech that intentionally incites violence without artistic merit.  Ted Nugent is certainly free to explain how threatening to kill Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with a gun had artistic merit, but he is certainly not free from being asked to do so.

© 2008 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop