Did Right-Wing Pundits Help Pull the Trigger on Tiller?

Scott Philip Roeder, charged in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, was a regular consumer of conservative talk radio, television, and websites. But did Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck—or any other commentator whipping up an audience with overheated demonizing rhetoric—actually help pull the trigger?

It’s not quite that simple. These pundits are not legally culpable for the assassination of Dr. Tiller--but they must share some portion of moral responsibility for creating a dangerous environment in which Tiller's death was made more likely.

Right-wing pundits demonize scapegoated groups and individuals in our society, implying that it is urgent to stop the groups and individuals named by the pundits from wrecking the nation. Some angry people in the audience already believe conspiracy theories in which the same scapegoats are portrayed as subversive, destructive, or evil. Add in aggressive apocalyptic ideas that suggest time is running out and quick action mandatory and you have a perfect storm of mobilized resentment threatening to rain bigotry and violence across the United States.

Demagogues and conspiracy theorists use the same “tools of fear,” consisting of four main elements:

1) dualism.
2) scapegoating.
3) demonization.
4) apocalyptic aggression.

The basic dynamics remain the same no matter the ideological leanings of the demonizers or the identity of their targets. Meanwhile, our ability to resolve disputes through civic debate and compromise is hobbled. Currently, its right-wing demagogues and conspiracy theorists who dominate the political landscape.

I've just published a new study: Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating, that sadly is especially timely given the assassination of Dr. Tiller. The study focuses on the history and dynamics of conspiracism, but argues that it is the combination of demagogic demonization and widespread conspiracy scapegoating that is so dangerous. In such circumstances, angry allegations can quickly turn into aggression and violence targeting scapegoated groups or individuals

Conspiracy theories are widespread among right-wing populists in the Patriot Movement, which spawned the armed citizens militias and the Freemen in the 1990s—networks from which Roeder seems to have emerged.

I trace the roots of conspiracism throughout U.S. and European history, and argue that conspiracism is a lousy form of political analysis. Modern conspiracism is rooted in bigotry, especially antisemitism and racism. Conspiracy theories encourage demonization and scapegoating of blameless persons and groups—distracting society and would-be agents of change away from the real causes of social and economic injustice. Conspiracism is practiced by demagogues on the Right and on the Left—and both inside and outside the corridors of power.

What historian Richard Hofstadter famously described as the “paranoid style” in American political rhetoric is a form of apocalyptic belief that can quickly move far beyond the conscious intent of those who practice it. That's because people who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, and this has concrete consequences in the real world.

Thus the tools of fear pointed to Dr. Tiller, and what happened is now tragic history.

---

Toxic to Democracy is available in PDF format from PRA at http://www.publiceye.org/toxic2democracy/

Comments

[Zanti]

"These pundits are not legally culpable for the assassination of Dr. Tiller--but they must share some portion of moral responsibility for creating a dangerous environment in which Tiller's death was made more likely."

You write as if "creating a dangerous environment" were some kind of an abstract consideration, but--at least in the case of O'Reilly--there was blatant and relentless targeting of the man who was killed. If you or I used the airwaves to relentlessly rant on about someone, we'd be considered crazy and dangerous. If something violent happened as a result of our rants, there wouldn't be a second's debate over whether or not we were responsible. I don't get it--what makes O'Reilly so unlike you or me?

We give so many special privileges to entertainers and celebrities and TV loudmouths--and, meanwhile, average humans have to watch what they do and say. One set of rules for us, another for them. Ahh, democracy.

And what kind of government repression would follow in the wake of not allowing bullies like O'Reilly to target citizens for sport?

[HeevenSteven]

Don't need government repression, only corporations behaving responsibly--pull their ads from the offending network.

That'll happen when pigs fly of course.. or when one of their tarty anchor's has a wardrobe malfunction..

[Zanti]

"Don't need government repression...."

Outlawing such bullying wouldn't constitute government repression--it would be a matter of having laws. Personally, I favor having laws.

[FormerReaganite]

Chip, I don't like to label many of these TV /radio entertainers as "pundits." Technically, a pundit is a person "of great knowledge and learning, and /or authority." Very few of these people are anything even close to being experts, especially on the right-wing side.

[Chip Berlet - Huffpost Blogger]

You are correct, but most folks think of them as pundits. But I will think about it...it's a good point. Thanks.

[HeevenSteven]

I call them "Pundidiots" lol..

[DavidDial]

We Americans celebrate our freedom. We are duly proud of the fact that our founders cared so much about individual liberty that they enshrined certain inalienable rights in our constitution. We memorialize those who, throughout our history, have dedicated and, at times, forfeited their lives to protect and defend these rights. But I am not sure that we give enough thought to how much the exercise of these rights demands of us. Do we not have some responsibility to assure that our exercise of our own rights does not infringe upon the rights of others. It may be time to demand that those who exercise the right of free speech on the public stage prove, in the discretion and thoughtfulness of their comments, that they are unwilling to abuse this great gift for their own enrichment or at the expense of others. Any intelligent human being should be able to express their support for or opposition to anything without inflaming the passions of the ignorant among us. The failure to do so places the speaker or writer squarely among the ranks of the ignorant.

[HeevenSteven]

Chip,

in "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture" Mark Fenster makes a case that as well as a cover for racism, conspiracy theories are often a manifestation of populism, by groups who feel politically alienated.

I was wondering if you read Fenster and what you thought of his book.

[Chip Berlet - Huffpost Blogger]

Fenster's first edition changed my views somewhat, and I got to know him. He is still critical of my analytical model, but I cite him on alienation and populism in this report. He is a real scholar.

[HeevenSteven]

Thanks Chip. I guess I could have picked up Fenster's book (I have the 2nd ed) and looked for you in the references; but I'm not a real scholar like you guys...duh..lol..

I have a couple of otherwise normal, very intelligent, friends who believe any conspiracy theory put in front of them; and it is a source of endless frustration and fascination for me.

I'm just beginning to look at the literature on this stuff, although I've been reading Michael Shermer for some time.

Thanks for this blog. I've downloaded your report and will read it. I'll also read any other related blogs you have posted here. You have a new fan.

[PepperzMom]

"Scott Philip Roeder, charged in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, was a regular consumer of conservative talk radio, television, and websites. But did Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck—or any other commentator whipping up an audience with overheated demonizing rhetoric—actually help pull the trigger?"

The answer is "yes". It's called conspiracy to commit a crime, that being the death of Dr. Tiller.

[Chip Berlet]

Well, I appreciate your emotion, I am very angry myself. But If we rely on the government to deal with the dangerous speech of demagogues, we increase the risk of government repression which erodes free speech; and ignore our civic responsibility to denounce the right-wing pundits and reclaim some moral space for ourselves. But I cannot be critical of you, becasue I feel the same way in my heart. And you clearly are standing up. So thanks.

[Zanti]

Ever notice that, when you disagree with someone, you're often accused of being emotional? It's happened to me, too. This, despite the fact that all you did was provide a quote and make a brief, perfectly reasonable statement devoid of drama.

I agree with you completely, but the sad fact is this--Bill's a celebrity, like the rest. If you or I behaved remotely in the same manner, we'd be subject to arrest, and no one would be crying for our rights. No one would be voicing caution about the govt. becoming too repressive or playing the is-incitin­g-violence­-a-crime? game. Because we're nobodies.

It's analogous to the money traders/in­vestors/sw­ipers/.mag­icians who walk off with a million bucks in a shady deal versus you or me knocking over the local 7-11. They get a bonus, we go to jail.

A truly liberal left would object, and object strongly, to such a status quo. Our left does not. Unfortunately, it's the only left we've got.