FRAMESHOP

Congress Needs To Wake Up On Healthcare

Every time I tune-in to the "debate" on healthcare, it amazes me how utterly asleep Congress and the media are with respect to this issue. 

They, are, clueless. 

Supposedly, the healthcare debate is between one group of people who make fortunes via the insanely profitable insurance and phramaceutical industries and another group of people who want to make sure everybody in American has access to "affordable' healthcare.  How do we do that?  How can we twist and tie enough pieces together so that the healthcare needs of the many are balanced out by the concerns of this vast economic sector that employs countless people all across the country and generates a substantial portion of our gross national product?

Pushed to their political extremes, these two groups take turns shouting "socialism!" and "greed!" at each other in the vain hopes that the larger and louder will win persuade the public, nudge a majority of Senators, coax the White House, and win the day.

There is only one problem: healthcare should not be a technocratic debate about "affordability."  It should be a conversation about solutions to the fear that cripples a vast segment of the American public.  This fear has been with us for so long that "debate" is obscene by comparison to just stepping up and solving the problem.

Consider this simple fact: The number of Americans without healthcare coverage is so big, and has been growing for such a long time, that we can now simply say that the United States is a country with a systemic lack of healthcare for its citizens. 

Now, answer this:  Does it sound like a good thing to be a country with a "systemic lack of healthcare" or a bad thing?  Is that something you want or something you do not want?  

Obviously, it is bad.  But why is it bad?  What does a systemic lack of healthcare do to a country?

It may not seem obvious at first, but that question is the starting point of the kind of productive conversation that Congress and the media should be leading about healthcare.

The answer is: a systemic lack of healthcare (1) divides a nation and (2) cripples it with fear.

In a nation with a systemic lack of healthcare, there is a radical divide between the haves and the have-nots. 

Those with healthcare live in a world that is radically different from those who live in a world without it. 

The haves are able to treat their health like any other good or service in the economy.  Because healthcare is a privilege of income, the haves can go out and buy healthcare whenever they want, even to the point of excess.   And so healthcare becomes not just a means to feeling better, but a luxury good to be consumed with lavish abandon. 

Because the private system thrives or dies on the profitability of healthcare providers, a nation with a system lack of healthcare orients its health goods and services towards those that yield the highest profit margin.  Pills, treatments, operations, machinery, clinics--all become healthcare "offerings" to be packaged and sold in a competitive market.  This approach transforms healthcare into a market full of incredibly high quality, modern, and expensive procedures with fewer and fewer clients and customers to purchase them.  Meanwhile, because prevention is a less profitable business, it becomes a bottom shelf item. 

Those without healthcare, by contrast, live in a much different world.  For the have-nots, appetite for procedures and pills in the healthcare market is replaced by constant concern about a future health crisis or incident.   Life without healthcare becomes a constant game of odds making:  I if I spend X dollars on this procedure, will I be able to afford Y and Z 18 months down the road?  How long, at my age, would it be wise to go uninsured?  Can I risk coverage for my children, but not for myself?  Is 5 years too long to go without getting a full physical? How about 7?  If the lump in my breast does not hurt, can it be that bad? And so on, and so forth.

What happens when millions of people spend decades without healthcare is so shocking and so heartbreaking, that anyone who thinks about it would be instantly offended by the current Congressional debate.

During the Presidential election, CBS ran a piece about an American relief organization called Remote Area Medical (RAM) that ignores the healthcare "debate" and sets about doing what is right.  RAM sets up free emergency clinics in Latin American and African jungles, but which had recently started setting them up in urban America.

I have spoken to countless friends and colleagues about this 60 Minutes spot, and each time I do I always say the same thing:  I bet you cannot watch this short video without being moved to tears and without being utterly appalled at the selfishness and callousness of those who would deny Americans the right to healthcare--the right to live without fear.

I will throw down that same challenge here:

That is America, right there--the good and the bad.  Those people in Knoxville, TN, are in desperate need of medical care, and they are getting it via the generosity of a few selfless doctors, volunteers, and philanthropists.  

But we cannot stop by patting ourselves on the back.  We must see that the people who turned out in the middle of the night, who stood in line for hours--these are people living with constant, crippling fear. It is a fear caused by a "debate" that has denied them healthcare for decades.

Moreover, these Americans are not just in Knoxville.  There are more than 50 million people in this country living without any or adequate healthcare coverage and 50 million is a number far too vast to imagine.  They, are, everywhere.  Wherever there are people, wherever you are, in cities or in the suburbs--you are standing near people without healthcare.

To debate such a thing is folly.  it is akin to debating which mode of production produces a better boat while sipping brandy on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

Instead we should be making a list of every possible way to lift people out of these healthcare dead zones--zones devoid of healthcare for decades--such that they are able to live lives free from crippling fear. 

A "public option" for healthcare is not the only solution to the fear on the faces of the have-nots that turned out for to the RAM clinic in Knoxville. Nonetheless, a public option is one solution and for that reason alone, it should not be thrown out of a Congressional healthcare plan. 

For the Congress or the White House to toss out the public option because they cannot win the debate would be to ignore the true goal of reform: ending fear.

Congress needs to sit down and watch the CBS spot about Remote Area Medical.  Congress needs to see the fear on the faces of those good people in Knoxville and see it vanish when they are given the healtcare they need.  Congress needs to wake up and do what is right on healthcare--what is right for people, not what is right for debate.

When Politics Turns from Talk to Killing

Today, James von Brunn became the latest domestic terrorist to express his political views with an act of murder, in this case an attempted mass murder.   National Holocaust Museum security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns, by contrast, joined an inspiring list of American heroes who have stopped a terrorists bullet with their own bodies. 

While we mourn for the loss of Stephen Johns and our hearts reach out to his family and loved ones, it is worth considering a simple question:   What can each of us do to stop this startling trend--this horrible switch some Americans are making from talk to violence to express their politics?

To be realistic, the people who have been directly victimized by these crimes never had the luxury of feeling safe.    Nonetheless, now is the time for each of us to ask what we can do to stem this trend of violence.

For starters, we can pause and insist on a better political debate and we can talk openly about the kind of political talk we demand from our media, our politicians, and ourselves.

This moment when politics seems to be turning from talk to killing has emerged at a time when our politics is dominated by an alarming amount of over-the-top confrontational rhetoric firing on all cylinders from every form of broadcast media.  It is not just unpleasant, but capable of heating already simmering citizens to the boiling point. 

As summer heats up, we should all do what it takes to ratchet the political rhetoric down.

My suggestions are simple enough for everyone to do immediately.

First, the next time we hear a radio or TV host bombard an issue with overstated, violent rhetoric--we need to speak out against it.  We should turn it off, sure.  But we also need to tell our neighbors, friends, and coworkers that we do not want that kind of talk in our media.

Second, the next time we hear a politician incite hateful rage on the campaign trail with unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories about their opponents--we need to speak out against it.   We should vote for someone else, sure.  But we also need to tell our neighbors, friends, and coworkers that we do not want that kind of talk in our elections.

What each of us can do is stop consuming the rhetoric that pushes people to even consider violence as legitimate politics. And then, we need to say in our own words what kind of civic culture we want to reclaim.

Insisting on a better public debate will not magically do away with the various hateful ideologies that drive political assassins to kill, but it can go a long way to cooling things down.

The fact is, Americans are out of practice standing up and saying in our own words what kind of public discussion we expect in our politics.    What we want is a conversation in the media and in the public square that helps us get the information we need to understand the complex problems we can only solve together.   

We want a productive, pragmatic debate.  To get back to it, we need to say so out loud.

As we head into summer, each of us can honor the memory of Stephen Tyrone Johns not only with our silent prayers, but by sharing with others the kind of talk we want in our politics.

DC Holocaust Museum Shooting

(This post will be updated. Please check back. --JF)

Some information on the man arrested--the suspected shooter who was shot in the head.

His name is: James Von Brunn (b. 1920).  

Brunn was shot in the head after firing on security guards today just before 1pm at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC.

Three people were taken to the hospital after the incident, including Brunn, a critically wounded security guard and a third person who suffered wounds from shattering glass.

This 1981 article from The Washington Post describes his past record:

December 8, 1981

A 61-year-old man from New Hampshire walked into the headquarters of the Federal Reserve System yesterday with two guns, a package he said contained dynamite, and a desire to improve the nation's economy, D.C. police said.

The man entered the building at 21st Street and Constitution Avenue NW about 10:30 a.m. with a bag slung over the shoulder of his trench coat and told the guard he wanted to take photographs.

After the guard asked him to wait for clearance, the man ran to the second floor, where the Federal Reserve Board was meeting.

Denied entrance to the meeting, he drew a .38-caliber revolver and sat outside the meeting room. When he placed the gun in a pocket, a guard pounced on the man and disarmed him. The man then said he had placed dynamite in the building, and employes were evacuated until a harmless package of wires and paper had been found and inspected.

Police said they arrested James Von Braunn of Lebanon, N.H., and charged him with burglary while armed.

In addition to the revolver, police said the man had on his person a sawed-off shotgun and a hunting knife.

Detectives said the man told them he wanted to take board members hostage to focus media attention on the board's responsibility for high interest rates and the nation's economic difficulties.

(LexisNexis:

So Brunn has a record. 

Brunn's website is called HolyWesternEmpire.org, which contains information I am now going through.

He penned a "book" called "Kill the Best Gentiles," which outlines a supposed Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

MSNBC reports that he is a U.S. veteran and potentially a PT boat operator from WWII.

(posted 2:42pm)

A bio of James von Brunn from his website:

James W. von Brunn holds a BachSci Journalism degree from a mid-Western university where he was president of SAE and played varsity football.

During WWII he served as PT-Boat captain, Lt. USNR, receiving a Commendation and four battle stars. For twenty years he was an advertising executive and film-producer in New York City. He is a member of Mensa, the high-IQ society.

In 1981 Von Brunn attempted to place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest. He was tried in a Washington, D.C. Superior Court; convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals denied his appeal. He served 6.5 years in federal prison. (Read about von Brunn's "Federal Reserve Caper" HERE.) He is now an artist and author and lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog is the culmination of his life's work. 

(posted 2:42pm)

Curiously, von Brunn's website has a page of "links" to various white supremacy pages (e.g. Stormfront).  The page also includes a link to the Institute for Historical Review, often criticized as a Holocaust denial front agency.  Listed in the IHR right-hand column:  Pat Buchanan's recent book on Hitler.

(posted 3:32pm)

TPM has located a letter posted by von Brunn on a website called DN.no/forum--the post questions President Obama's citizenship:

Obama is missing!

Skrevet av Sigurd Mellqvist (Gjest) 02.12.2008 18:47

The American People Demand to Know:

WHO SENT YOU???

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this is no accident. It is being done on purpose with Media help - but to serve whom & why???

MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:

Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA -- Not Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)

Certificate of Live Birth -- Released - Proven Counterfeit (www.ObamaFiles.com)

Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro adoption records -- Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Not Released

Punahou School records -- Not released

Selective Service Registration -- Released - Proven Counterfeit

Occidental College records -- Not released

Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released

Columbia College records -- Not released

Columbia thesis -- Not released

Harvard College records -- Not released

Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

Baptism certificate -- None

Medical records -- Not released

Illinois State Senate records -- None (Locked up to prohibit public view

Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost (All other Illinois state senators' records are intact)

Law practice client list -- Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

WHY DON'T WE SEE ONE WORD OF THIS IN ANY OF THE MEDIA?

Love him or hate him, we all remember how the press went to great lengths to find out every move that President Bush made ... finally unable to come up with anything factual, so they created it! When their accusations were proven empty, they refused to retract one word of the fraud they perpetrated on the American people.

Dan Rather lost his job over fraudulent documents, because common people like you & me reached out and ripped CBS to pieces. They couldn't stand the loss of sponsors OR viewers!

The same Media went to great lengths to scandalize & destroy Sarah Palin. She maintains a 91% approval rating among voters from all parties, thanks to the Internet and investigative journalists who don't work for the mainstream media.

NOW ------- The Supreme Court has scheduled a Conference for Dec 5th about Obama's

U. S. Citizenship. STILL, not a word about any of this from the Media. If it were not for the Internet and talk radio, American citizens would become the servants of a dishonest & conspiratorial Media.

THINK ABOUT IT. IT DIDN'T USED TO BE THIS WAY! How much longer are we going to sit on our hands & say not a word?

AND DON'T THINK THE MEDIA SIMPLY DOESN'T KNOW - THEY ARE GETTING POUNDED WITH EMAILS ABOUT IT!!!

Obama could not get a simple security clearance with the information the government has on him ---- NOBODY COULD!

NOW he is privy to every top secret America has!

What is going on??? WHERE ARE THE GOOD PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY - ARE YOU OUT THERE???

Submitted by: James W. von Brunn

This letter suggests von Brunn was a supporter of Sarah Palin and parroted lines about "media deception" the Palin campaign used in the 2008 election and still uses to this day in interviews.

(posted 3:43pm)

At this point I am starting to listen for themes popping up in the media coverage.  So far, the coverage has been very narrowly focused on passive triggers, but has ignored the rhetorical triggers for von Brunn's crime.  Call-in experts have commented that the site of an African-American president with Jewish advisers would be enough to set off white-supremacists--enough to push them to violence.

But the other aspect of this issue, which has yet to be discussed are the rhetorical notes hit during the 2008 campaign--particularly during the Palin campaign. 

During that campaign, Palin was repeatedly criticized for accusing the Obama administration of 'socialism' and 'communism'--words literally peppered throughout white-supremacist conspiracy literature about Jews taking over the country. 

While we wait anxiously to hear good news about the museum security guard who stopped von Brunn--and our hearts are with their families--we must begin to ask the larger question here:

To what extent has right-wing violent rhetoric that has obsessed about the 'take over' of the country by nefarious forces for over a year--to what extent did the 2008 Republican presidential campaign amplify and normalize that language and that logic?  And if it did normalize it, what responsibility does the media have to monitor that culture so that it cannot inspire white-supremacists to commit violent acts in the public sphere?

I discuss these issues at great length in my book Outright Barbarous:  How the Violent Language of hte Right Poisons Our Democracy

What I argue in that book, and will also argue here, is that we make a fundamental mistake if we limit our questions to legal responsibility--if we limit ourselves to just asking questions about literal incitement.  The media also has a responsibility to ask questions about the proper way to maintain a functioning civic debate.  And a functioning civic debate is one that constantly pushes people away from the idea that violence is an acceptable form of politics.

(posted 4:11pm)

Very, very sad news:  The officer who stopped von Brunn has died.   Horrible news.

On behalf of all Frameshop readers:  our thougts and prayers go out to the families of this fallen hero.

(posted 4:13pm)

MSNBC reporting that von Brunn had a notebook listing 100 targets.

(posted 4:33pm)

The Holocaust And The Road To Peace

As a Jewish American, I am not embarrassed to admit the part of President Obama's Cairo speech that jumped out at me was his strategic and symbolic reference to the "Holocaust."

OK, I am a little embarrassed.

The fact is, I find it strange to even admit that I listen for how well my President talks about the Holocaust in his speeches, but I do.  We live in contentious political times and the Holocaust as a symbol is smack dab in the middle of it.

My concern was not for myself but for those Jewish Americans who, over the course of the 2008 election, became convinced that Barack Obama as President would be "against" rather than "for" the Jews. 

I have 100% confidence in the new direction President Obama has promised since the election on Middle East policy, and feel positive that his approach will restart the Middle East peace process and set the U.S. on a better footing vis-a-vis Central Asian nations. My Jewishness has not been a factor in my attitude towards this President.  When I evaluate this President, I do so through my views on healthcare, the auto industry, education, and the environment.  

And yet, I still listen for the references to the Holocaust in speeches that talk of Israel and the Middle East.  'How will he do?'  I wonder.

Politically and intellectually, the President did a solid job in his Cairo speech with this statement:

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

When I say 'solid job,' I mean the paragraph hit all the right symbolic notes.  Key constituencies in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East were listening for exactly this kind of statement, and the President articulated it with a voice of leadership and conviction.  It felt right.

And yet, I suspect the statement will be criticized by some Jewish pundits as not going far enough--for not stating emphatically and explicitly enough (is it ever enough?) that the purpose of U.S. support for Israel is to prevent another Holocaust against the Jews.

While I am frustrated with the pundits who whip up this fear, I am not angry with those who respond to it. 

The problem, it seems, is that the unfounded fear that America under Barack Obama has become less safe for Jews seems to resonate strongest amongst those Jewish people who have dedicated their lives to helping the State of Israel and to remembering the tragic genocide of European Jewry.  These are not slackers, but leaders in the world of philanthropy and charitable causes.  It is not, as many believe, an ideological position restricted to conservative Republican voters, but an outgrowth of the civic identities that many American Jews have created for themselves.

Those who raise money for Holocaust memorials and scholarship, as well as for Israeli charities, are Jewish people who believe very deeply that a moral and safe future depends on supporting individuals and causes in need as well as making sure that the State of Israel stands as the singular insurance policy against any potential threats to Jew existence.  Many of these people--good people--have been dedicated to this vision for their entire lives at staggering levels.  While I do not share their particular approach to thinking about America, Israel or the Holocaust, I also do not doubt their sincerity or the value of their work.

Unlike many of these people, however, I do not share their concern for Jewish safety in the United States. In my view, never before in American history have Jewish people been more safe and secure than they are in the United States, today.

I view this "concern" in the framework of politics.  

That many America Jews suddenly felt less safe after Barack Obama was elected President was not an accident, but was the disgusting byproduct of a relentless right-wing propaganda scheme focused on Jewish communities that began during the 2008 presidential primary season and has not subsided even to this day.   The campaign was not based on facts, but as always in politics, facts matter less than perception.  The fear campaign worked and it worked most effectively by exploiting the symbolic link that many Jews hold in their hearts between the "Holocaust," Israel and a vague sense of safety and security.

The symbolic linking of "Holocaust" and Israel, in other words, has mobilized funds and support for good causes, but it has also created social, cultural and political problems at home and abroad.   

In addition to the 2008 right-wing propaganda campaigns, the well-intentioned linking of "Holocaust" and Israel has been easily perverted to justify some of the most horrendous policies towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  Houses have been demolished, communities have been starved of income and resources, and military campaigns from the air against unarmed civilians have all been conducted in the name of preventing another Holocaust.  As a human being, let alone a Jewish person, I cringe when I hear these justifications from anyone. 

Another problem in this vein has been even more vexing, albeit far less visible:  the problem of the "settlers." 

At a level that most Americans never see, the symbolic linking of "Holocaust" and Israel has given rise to a kind of personality and political movement in Israel that runs counter to the humanistic values that Judaism represents.  Since the late 1970's, hundreds of thousands of Jewish "settlers" have built and lived in illegal villages, subdivisions and camps based on the notion that their occupation of the West Bank will prevent a future Holocaust.  The children born into this world are innocent, but the adults are not. 

In 1994, a settler named Baruch Goldstein walked into a holy shrine in the city of Hebron and killed 29 praying Muslims with an machine gun--all in the name of preventing another Holocaust.  In 1995, Yigal Amir, a supporter of the settler movement, assassinated then prime minister Yitzchak Rabin--in the name of blocking the Oslo accords, which this young man believed would lead to another Holocaust.  

Beyond violence on the ground, because the Holocaust has become so central to American and Israeli Jewish thinking, Middle Eastern politicians who want to be heard by Americans have resorted to invoking it as a form of shock politics.

When leadership in Hamas or in Iran give speeches denying that the Holocaust happened or belittling the memory of those who perished, for example, they have not done so out of some deep interest in correcting history, but only as a finger in the eye to those who see both of these issues as irrevocably linked.   Sadly, this tactic achieves the short term and cynical goal of landing the speech on the front pages of the global media.

This is not an excuse.  The disrespectful appropriation of Holocaust memory is, for my money, one of the most hurtful forms of political rhetoric.  Moreover, some of this rhetoric has incited militants to strap bombs to their chests, blow up buses and markets, and launch rockets at Israeli towns. 

And yet, as crass and self-serving as this abuse of the Holocaust has been, it leads me to ask a question that I know is hard for many American Jews to hear without feeling their hearts quicken: 

<em>Has the "Holocaust"--while essential to remember and to honor--become a hurdle on the road to peace rather than a signpost?</em>

I believe it just might be a hurdle and that the time has come for American Jews to see the Holocaust and Israel not as one commitment, but as dual commitments that we can maintain simultaneously without turning one into a symbolic lien against the other. 

How exactly will that happen?  I can only speak from my own experience.

As an American Jew, I was lucky enough in my 20s to spend years studying and working in Israel.  My time abroad afforded me the opportunity to see past Israel as a symbol and appreciate the staggering cultural difference between Americans and Israelis.   I know from experience that when American Jews take the difficult step of thinking critically about the symbolic link that binds the memory of the Holocaust to the State of Israel, the result is a deeper understanding of both aspects of American Jewish identity, not a more dangerous world. But to take these steps, we must be willing to ignore the agents of political fear that will continue to target Jewish communities in the elections of 2010 and beyond.  

Some American Jews have already walked down this path and are not susceptible to symbolic manipulation of the Holocaust for political gain.  Many other American Jews who listened to President Obama's Cairo speech, however,  now find themselves at the beginning a difficult intellectual and emotional road. 

For the first time in their lives, they must find new ways to honor the memory of those who suffered and perished in the Holocaust and new ways to support the State of Israel--new ways that do not leverage one as a symbolic roadblock in the peace process of the other.   Believing that peace is possible in the Middle East may well depend on how successful American Jews are at this task.

I may be a bright-eyed optimist, but I believe we can do it.  I believe that the greatest way to honor those who perished in the Holocaust is to let their memories step away respectfully from the peace process. And I believe that peace in the Middle East would give American Jews a chance to explore and learn from one of the most vibrant and diverse part of the world.

But when the speeches are over, the crowds have gone home, and the historic trips have come to an end, the first step we must take is in our own heads and hearts. 

The Politics of "Murder"

The violent killing of yet another American doctor at the hands of yet another right-wing political activist forces us to ask a crucial question:  Why does the right-wing anti-abortion movement in America repeatedly give rise to people who see murder as a legitimate form of protest?  

The answer does not lie in any single procedure (e.g. "late term abortions"), but in the violent rhetoric that defines a political movement.  

The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is the product of a political movement that has so thoroughly expanded the definition of "murder" that it now includes everything and everyone who rejects or even questions the idea that a zygote is a citizen.  Until that movement changes its focus, it will continue to give rise to activists who kill doctors.

So called "late term abortion" is a hotly contested and controversial practice debated in living rooms and judicial opinions alike.  But it is not the reason a right-wing activist shot another doctor.  Dr. George Tiller was killed in his church because the right-wing has built a political movement around a violent idea: that America has been transformed by liberals into a culture that "murders" babies.  

Like a giant river supported by millions of tiny underground streams, this movement is supported by everyone who defines those with whom they disagree on abortion policy as supporters of "murder."

For those Americans whose worldview has been saturated and distorted by this political movement, "murder" is not just a throwaway term from TV, radio or church.  For these few, "murder" has become a dark lens through which they view all of contemporary American society--a poisonous paradigm that leads them to believe the only way to end this new holocaust is to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots.

But those who kill doctors are only one part of the problem.

Even among those who would never condone violent acts in politics, many feel perfectly comfortable contributing to the political rhetoric that has steadily expanded the definition of "murder" to the point where it cultivates actual political violence.  

In 2009, the right-wing definition of what constitutes the "murder" of babies goes far beyond the actual abortion of a fetus to encompass a vast range of political views, situations and people.  It has become commonplace on the right, for example, to talk about defrosting frozen embryos as an act of "murder."   Many on the right talk about the so-called "morning after pill" and the RU486 "abortion pill" as "murder."  Many on the right even talk about birth control as "murder."

Murder, murder, murder--the drumbeat is hypnotic.  When the right is talking about abortion, they are accusing the left of "murder."

Watching Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or other right-wing media figures discuss abortion offers a good glimpse into how these debates take shape, but it is not the only cause.

In political debates, right-wing voices almost always use certain controversial procedures to define abortion as "murder," but even when the subject moves beyond those procedures they continue to use "murder" to describe all other aspects of abortion.   The phrase "baby murderer,"  then becomes short-hand for referring to "liberals" in other contexts.  

This right-wing rhetorical strategy is used so often, people barely give it any notice anymore.  Calling people "murderers" and "baby killers" has become a normal part of U.S. media.  Guests on TV and radio shows who routinely accuse their debate opponents of supporting or condoning "murder" are invited back time and time again to repeat the accusation.

Steeped in this expanding definition of "murder," almost all right-wing political participants choose violent rhetoric over violent action.  They choose to call someone a "murderer, rather than killing a doctor, as a protest against abortion.

But because the rhetoric has steadily expanded to such a vast range of political views and actions that have all been encompassed by one giant concept of "murder," there are some right-wing activists who do chose violent action as the best way to bring about political change.

No matter how many or how few late term abortions are performed, so long as the right-wing anti-abortion movement continues to fold dissent into an ever-expanding definition of "murder," then the right-wing will continue to give rise to activists who kill doctors.