Something which ought to be a given in contemporary American political discourse is that violence, or the threat of violence, against those with whom one disagrees is unacceptable. Just as the free market is essential to the improvement of goods and services in commerce, a free market of ideas is crucial to the shaping of a free society. Ideas, like concepts in mathematics and the natural sciences, warrant continual testing as time pogresses and new circumstances emerge. Intellectual honesty must be an essential component to experimentation in all areas of rational discourse.

In the week since the passage into law of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, much has been written about vandalism and threats of violence targeting public officials. Such acts of vandalism and threats of violence are inexcusable. For the rational, there are nonviolent ways to justly express objection to the new health reform law. The irrational, however, have been the focus of recent press accounts. Unfortunately though, too many otherwise intelligent people have taken a disturbingly one-sided view to recent events.

While the left has long sought to portray critics of President Obama and the present Congress as bigots and conspiracy theorists, reporting in support of such a perspective picked up from the day of the narrow House vote for passage, and has continued unabated ever since. On March 21, three Democratic members of Congress claimed to have been the victims of bigotry on their as they passed protesters near the Capitol. Two members claim to have been subjected to verbal attacks, and a third was allegedly spat upon. To date, no video of the incident as described by the legislators has surfaced. One cannot help but wonder if the reports of these allegations influenced any of the votes for reform cast by House Democrats. Throughout the week, there were press reports of harassing phone calls and acts of vandalism perpetrated against Democrats and their families. One Democrat, Bart Stupak, was harassed and accosted when it appeared that his might have been a vote against reform.

Democrats were quick to use the anger narrative spun for them by allies in the press to fundraise all this week. Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who opposed the health reform bill with all other House Republicans and 34 of his Democratic peers, criticized the politicization of these attacks by Democrats. Cantor too was the target of a  death threat during the past week, after gunfire erupted adjacent to his Richmond office. In his case, however, an arrest was made. The man arrested had twice donated to the Obama campaign, and the DNC has since the arrest forwarded those donations to charity.

Fundraising was not the only stunt pulled by the Democratic Party in the wake of threats against members of Congress; the paty brass proposed cosigning a “civility statement” with the Republican National Committee to discourage hostile rhetoric at political events. Michael Steele and the Republican National Committee, now facing unrelated controversies, refused to partake in the deal. With respect to the civility statement, the RNC was not wrong. Civility is sorely lacking in contemporary discourse, as has been noted here not infrequently in the past. When it comes to the lack of civility in the public arena, however, those in glass houses ought not to chuck stones.

Democrats readily denounce protesters who wave signs suggesting that President Obama is a socialist or a fascist, but are selective in their objection to such epiphets.

If Olbermann being himself is not convincing enough, a refresher on protest signs waved during the previous administarion ought to be demonstrative. 

The example provided here is one of the more civil signs waved in opposition to President Bush during his administration.

Yet, to read the New York Times, one would think that such absurdities are the sole providence of the GOP and conservatives. A recent opinion piece by Frank Rich in said paper openly propagated such falsehoods. Despite the fact that it was Democrats and not Republicans who were fundraising off of these instances, Rich accused the Republicans of metaphorically instigating an American Kristallnacht. Joining this chorus of ignorance was the bombastic Florida favorite of progessives, Congressman Alan Grayson. He too suggested that Republicans are Nazis, drawing parallels to the Reichstag fire. While it is unfortunate that neither man has a better grasp of political history in nineteen thirties Europe than Pat Buchanan, more disturbing is the rank hypocrisy of their rhetoric.  

Now that the reconciliation bill is also law, Republicans must be better about emphasizing process in protesting the actions of the other party. Process in protest matters as much as process in legislating. However, conservatives should be keenly aware that treading carefully is essential to the presentation of ideas in the great American marketplace. Indeed, the lack of civility among some is not just disruptive to people, but to causes. Republicans can and must be better than Democrats have thus far on matters of conduct if a change in direction for the country is to occur following the November elections this year.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010