Association, Implication, Accusation

Yesterday, alternet.org published an article by Rory O'Connor discussing the culpability of right-wing talk radio in the July 28 shooting at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tenn. Rory is co-author of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio, in which he and Aaron Cutler attack right-wing hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I haven't read the book, but I am always wary of attempts by well-meaning liberals to deal with "hate speech." Hate should be rejected, rebutted, and remonstrated, but never censored. Acting as an agent of tolerance is incompatible with acting as a thoughtpoliceman. I will reserve judgment on the efforts and arguments of O'Connor and Cutler until such time as I have read them in context.

O'Connor's article first deals with accusations made against him by conservatives, comparing him the Nazis. These are fairly standard, not particularly adroit, and largely unworthy of attention. O'Connor dismisses them as such and derides the supposed 'conspiracy to kill talk radio' in which Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all liberals are complicit, according to the angry, grandiose delusions of right-wing radio hosts. O'Connor mentions this conspiracy theory as a means to transition onto the topic of the 'actual conspiracy to kill,' in which he links the right-wing radio stalwarts Savage, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin to last week's church shooting. Jim Adkisson, the church gunman, had bought and read several of their books, it turns out. He also listened to them on the radio.

This thesis is guilt by association, and I don't see much to warrant the connection. How can O'Connor establish that listening to Limbaugh or Savage abetted or even inspired Adkisson's act of violence? Limbaugh is more insipid than violent, though as O'Connor points out, some weeks ago he expressed his hope the agents provocateurs would stage riots and the Democratic Convention in Denver. I don't see any impetus in Limbaugh's words or ideas for random acts of violence on people merely because their church affiliation identifies them as liberal.

Savage, by contrast, seems dangerously deranged. He is erudite but bipolar, shifting in seconds from dulcet Brooklyn-tinged rumination to bellicose paroxysms. Savage frequently describes his opponents as 'vermin' and warns against the dangerous erosion of white culture in the United States. I don't necessarily think that Savage is an improbable instigator of violence, but I do think O'Connor's association here is facile. His case is not assiduously made. Accessory to murder is not a trivial charge, and the burden is on O'Connor to support it.

Both of the above talkers foster the conceit that large conservative blocs act according to their daily commands over the airwaves. Limbaugh takes credit for 'Operation: Chaos,' in which conservatives purportedly registered to vote in Democratic primaries so as to keep Hillary Clinton's candidacy alive. His hopeful speculation about riots in Denver played into the same pretension. Savage actually considers himself a national hero, taking credit for the horrendously jingoistic diversion of the dreaded Dubai Ports deal and the disgusting intrusion of the government into the case of Terri Schiavo. O'Connor is reinforcing the suggestion that Americans act on the exhortations of these hate-peddlers. So far as I understand, that's the thesis of his book,

It is likely that there is some non-causative correlation between violent hatred for liberal people and institutions and interest in the works of the conservative shock jocks. In an open marketplace of ideas, if there are dollars available to support this kind of hate speech, the niches occupied by Savage et al. will inexorably be filled. People in America already espouse the antipathies exhibited by Adkisson, and they will inevitably be articulated in some corners of the intellectual discourse. The pundits in question are a symptom of a social phenomenon antecedent to their prominence as radio hosts. Assigning them culpability won't kill their ideas. Even banning them from the radio wouldn't keep them off the Internet. Linking them to criminal activity in an attempt to silene them is a losing battle.

Moreover, guilt by association is a vile, right-wing tactic. These very same shock jocks spout constant accusations that Barack Obama is untrustworthy because he associates with terrorists such as William Ayers and his racist (Christian) ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We liberals (well, some of us) object when Marilyn Manson and the Grand Theft Auto games are blamed for violence by teenagers. I don't see any reasonable distinction between those and the question O'Connor is trying ask.

And O'Connor is, at base, asking a question about culpability. He flirts with standing up and pointing the finger at his adversaries, but always retreats into comfortable dubity. If he's going to make a case against Savage and Limbaugh, he should do so emphatically rather than by mere suggestion. Is there some passage in which Savage (for instance) demonized Unitarians in particular? Is there a connection somewhere in the voluminous screeds of Hannity or Limbaugh that touched particularly on a personal experience of Adkisson's life? While my presumption is against the association O'Connor is trying to make, I am not averse to evidence. O'Connor declines to provide any.