Should natural disasters, terrorism, etc. be used to demonize political opponents?

Remove all ads!

All throughout history groups have taken advantage of crises to demonize their political opponents. Some, such as Rahm Emanuel (Obama adviser and Democratic Mayor of Chicago), argue that taking advantage of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, massacres and other tragedies is a "good thing" and should be encouraged. Others believe that it is deceitful, disrespectful and shouldn't be considered a legitimate political tactic by anyone.

Using tragedies to demonize political opposition has become more and more common recently in the United States. The Chairman of the Democratic Party and several media outlets falsely blamed the Tucson massacre on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. Others falsely accused the Batman killer of being a member of the Tea Party. Meanwhile Time Magazine urged Obama to exploit the Batman massacre for political gain.

More recently several prominent liberals have blamed the Tea Party, right-wingers and the "anti-tax" movement of being responsible for the Boston bombings. Michael Moore blamed the Tea Party for the bombings. David Axelrod, a prominent Democratic Party adviser, has also hinted that it was the Tea Party or another "anti-tax" group. CNN has stated (without evidence) that a "right-wing extremist" group might be responsible. MSNBC followed in suite. Federal government officials have also directly blamed the Tea Party.

This form of politicking isn't limited to one side or the other though. Take for instance Alex Jones, a self-proclaimed libertarian, who has brought up the possibility that Barack Obama was responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston bombings. Alex Jones previously criticized the George W. Bush administration, questioning whether or not the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "inside job."

Do you believe this form of politicking is acceptable, respectable and legitimate? Do you believe that such baseless accusations lead to increased polarization of society? And what do you propose we should do, if anything, to help combat such misinformation?

 

For what it's worth, I think you probably mean "followed in suit" or "followed suit." (Your word looks like it's pronounced "sweet," like 'honeymoon suite,' which is kind of comical , as opposed to "soot.")

 

Politicking is used by all parties in the US. It's basically standard format. Just take a peek back into time and re-watch the presidential debates from last year. Or throughout the history of the US.

 

You know how the 24 hour news cycle works AD, in the absence of details after a disaster, they fill the void with commentators (just to be clear, not referring to people brought on to explain or inform, but the outrage merchants brought on to yell their opinions), considering none of them know anymore than anybody else, they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Also that Time article was an opinion piece encouraging Obama to have the courage of his convictions and stake his presidency on gun control. He didn't, if he did, it might have cost him re-election, not sure how you interpret political oblivion as political gain.

 

Should it? No. Will it? Yes. Should it be banned? I think it falls under the freedom of speech in that holy constitution of yours you seem to worship. So no.

Politicians will always A) try take credit for all the good. B) try to blame their opponents for all the bad. C) Avoid any responsibility for anything that may endanger their re election.

 

Is the politicization of tragedies a good thing?

I guess that depends on whether or not you like the incumbent....

 

Tragedies shouldn't be politicized, but how we react to them is fair game. If an inattentive driver causes a 50 car pileup, we don't decide to give him a pass just because the accident was a 'tragic event'. Along the same vein, if a sitting politician is found to have been insufficiently attentive to a security gap that leads to a horrible tragedy, he doesn't deserve a pass. Even if the event is not foreseeable, an underwhelming response to a an unforeseeable tragedy should also be fair game.

In the real world, we hold people to account for errors in judgement both in preventing and responding to tragedies. Why should politicians expect to be treated any differently?

 

For the record, this has been done since the time of Nero and the great fire of Rome. In all likelihood it's been there since the time of the Greeks, perhaps even earlier.

It's all part of the concept of blame, and how blame is such a powerful tool in the field of politics.

 

If there is a clear connection, like between guns and shootings, then it should be open to discussion. It can't be politicised, because it already is politically involved. The term has become yet another term that is used so loosely and is becoming a derogatory term. In Holland the term populist is used to refer to politicians who manipulate voters by appealing to their emotion, or manipulative. In reality, it represents anything that appears to be addressing the wants of the people. So, not all populists are bad, and in fact all politicioans should be this to some extent.

Politicizing simply means having a political debate about something relevant. It's a redefinition of language that just happens to conveniently silence any attempts to discuss urgent issues. It shuldn't become derogatory, but of course it will. That's called messaging, or rebranding