The Right-Wing Response To The Massacre In Norway: Drenched In Ignorance And Insensitivity

Last week’s tragedy in Norway has left the world stunned. The magnitude of the bloodbath is difficult to comprehend. As news of the massacre began to trickle out, speculation was rampant as to the perpetrator and the motive.

Not surprisingly, much of the early accounts falsely alleged an Al Qaeda connection. However, as facts started to infuse the reporting, it became clear that the suspect, Anders Breivik was an extremist, fundamentalist Christian, with harshly bigoted views toward Muslims, immigrants, and leftists. His manifesto resembled the ravings of Glenn Beck with talk of cultural Marxism and Islamic colonization. Yet even after Breivik’s motives were disclosed, the right-wing media has engaged in brazen finger-pointing and insensitivity toward the victims and other innocent parties. For instance…

1) A writer on Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace website set out to whitewash Breivik’s right-wing Christianity: “This Norwegian terrorist was not a Christian or a conservative. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible and conservatives from Burke to Madison. He was instead a jihadist, blinded by an ideology who resorted to violence…”
While Breitbart’s crew is anxious to disassociate mainstream Christians from this atrocity, rightists in America rarely offer that distinction to Muslims who regard terrorists like Bin Laden as apostates and not representative of their faith.

2) On the other hand, CNN’s Erick Erickson unapologetically went after Muslims anyway: “The fact of the matter is violence and Islam may not be very common among American Muslims [sic], but internationally it is extremely common and can fairly well be considered mainstream within much of Islam.”
Remember, this was after Erickson learned that there was no Islamic connection to the massacre. It was also after he had accused Muslim’s of the crime before Breivik was captured.

3) A writer at RedState went off a cognitive cliff to claim that “We live in a world where we are perfectly happy to abort millions of children and then DEMAND to know WHY Anders Behring Breivik became the human sarcoma that he truly is.”
Never mind the fact that we already know that Breivik’s assault was spurred by his hatred for multiculturalism, the RedStaters, like all wingnuts, are determined to find a way to lay blame on any handy tenet of progressivism. Remember Pat Robertson blaming Hurricane Katrina on the gays?

4) Mark Steyn of the National Review is stumped as to why there have been allegations of Islamophobia: “So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an ‘Islamophobic’ mass murder?”
It is if he knew that Breivik explicitly targeted people associated with Norway’s Labour Party, whom he blamed for promoting multiculturalism.

5) Brian Kilmeade on Fox News queried his guest: “Are you surprised somewhat that western newspapers, in this case The New York Times seem to be jumping on the fact — they’re trying to equate Christian, what they say are Christian extremists, with Muslim extremists?”
Kilmeade utterly failed to grasp the irony that just hours before he and his network were baselessly accusing Muslims of committing the mass murder. Now he’s worried about the reputation of Christians despite the fact that the shooter was a Christian.

6) Professional Islamophobe, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs found a unique way to blame Muslims even after she knew they were not involved “Anders Behring Breivik is responsible for his actions. If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists. If anything incited him to violence, it was the Euro-Med policy.
So according to Gellar, Muslims are responsible for violence that they cause themselves, as well as for violence caused by others who hate them.

7) After first asserting that the perpetrators were likely to have been Muslim terrorists, John Hinderaker of the PowerLine blog dug in saying “Was that wrong? Not at all. Any time mass murder attacks take place, it is not just likely but highly probable that they are the work of Muslim jihadists..”
This conveniently leaves open the opportunity to blame every future act of terrorism on Muslims, whether they are responsible or not.

8) As Norway mourns, it’s clear that the right-wing media has been boiling over with surreal speculation that is both derisive and bizarre. And you can’t allude to bizarre derision without acknowledging Glenn Beck, whose unconscionable remarks exceed all the other by disparaging the actual teenage victims even before they have been laid to rest.

“As the thing started to unfold, and then there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth, or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics?”

Well, for one there is Glenn Beck’s own 912 Project that sponsors the “Tampa Liberty School,” a Tea Party-themed getaway for schoolchildren ages 8-12. But that doesn’t excuse Beck’s inference that the slaughtered camp-goers were akin to Hitler’s youth brigades.

All of these examples of ignorant bigotry took place AFTER it was known that the gunman was not Muslim, but an extremist Christian and far right activist. Not surprisingly, the conservative press was just as blindly prejudiced in their initial reactions to the breaking news.

CNN’s Erick Erickson Tweeted: “Terrorist bombing in Oslo. I bet you it was not Lutherans who did it.” Another writer at Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace web site said: “Norway has a big Muslim problem. Before long we should know if Norway’s problem has just blown up in its face.” The author failed to provide a definition of what constitutes a “Muslim problem,” but it sounds disturbingly similar to what was once referred to as the “negro problem” in many of America’s southern states. Apparently he considers any presence of Muslims to be a problem. Filling in for Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham announced “two deadly terror attacks in Norway, in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists.” Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post said that “there is a specific jihadist connection here.” Thomas Jocelyn of the Weekly Standard said that “in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra.”

The despicably bigoted opinions expressed by the prominent, establishment commentators above reveal a dark and disturbing side of American conservatism. Their views percolate throughout the rightosphere and infect the broader community of conservatives. That endorsement of hate results in even more extreme views, like those expressed by this member of the Maine Tea Party: Man of the YEAR 2011 – Anders Behring Breivik!!!

Maine Tea Party - Breivik

If cooler (saner) minds don’t rise to moderate this overt hostility, the potential for more of this violence will persist, and there is no reason why it would not occur here in the United States. In fact, right-wing extremists have already demonstrated their capacity to do harm, as the survivors of Dr. Tiller, or the targets of Byron Williams will inform you. And lest we not forget Timothy McVeigh’s attack on a government that his militia-bred philosophy viewed as too liberal.

What Got Into Jon Stewart?

The Daily Show is routinely the most intelligent and entertaining program on television. And it achieves that despite being mostly about politics and the press. Stewart is one of nation’s great satirists and commentators.

However, last night’s episode (video below), while having moments of good humor, hit some surprisingly sour notes that were both unfunny and misrepresented the facts. The show’s first segment was focused on President Obama’s White House speech regarding the debt ceiling crisis. The first sign that Stewart was slipping out of bounds was his mockery of the President for delivering a “belt-tightening” speech in the opulent environs of the White House. Did Stewart expect the President to take a camera crew to a local soup kitchen? Would he have been satisfied if the speech was delivered from the White House laundry room? This complaint simply made no sense.

Then Stewart played a portion the speech where the President described the competing plans to resolve the crisis, saying…

“Basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.”

Stewart cut the video at that point to mock the President for proposing a plan that sounded more like it came from the Republicans. He would have been right except for the part he cut out that included this:

“Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions. This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much.”

Had Stewart left that in there would have been no punchline. It was the core component of the President’s plan that seeks to raise revenue from corporations and the wealthy. It is what distinguishes his approach from the Tea Party/GOP. And Stewart left it on the editing room floor on behalf of mediocre joke. But the worst part came after Obama made an appeal for viewers to contact their representatives in congress:

“So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.”

To this Stewart offered his patented smirk and queried incredulously…

“That’s your idea? Call your Congressman? Did the President just quit? I mean seriously, you’re the President. You’re asking US to call congress? Oh yeah, sure I’ll the congress. Why don’t you come here and mow my _______ lawn because I got ____ to do. It’s like you’ve given up.”

Stewart’s humor generally contains poignant insights cloaked in hilarity. But on this occasion he is badly adrift. What exactly does he think is wrong with asking the American people to take an active role in their government’s processes? How can he characterize Obama as having “given up” just because he believes that the people’s voice matters? What could be more patriotic than encouraging citizens to get involved?

I’m sorry, Jon, if you think that asking people to participate in government, at a time when their welfare is at great risk, is too much to do. I’m sorry if you have to mow your lawn and can’t be bothered with conveying your opinion to your representative on a critical issue. Many Americans will not have lawns to mow if the nation goes into default, interests rates rise, and they can no longer make their mortgage payments.

The upshot of Stewart’s position is that people should tend to their personal affairs and the President, and others in Washington, should fix everything for us, magically discerning our wishes. That is neither democratic, constructive or funny. And for his trouble, Stewart was the featured headline on Fox Nation with a headline that blared: “Jon Stewart Turns on Obama.” Try again Jon. I’ll still watch tonight.

And, by the way, was it really necessary to suck up to Juan Williams and refrain from challenging any of his self-serving PR? I mean, you couldn’t even make fun of his book title, “Muzzled,” despite the fact that he broadcasts daily on a platform where he reaches millions. I wish I was that muzzled.