Ask Auntie Pinko
April 21, 2005
By Auntie Pinko
I'm a Republican, and a conservative one at that. I consider
myself a smart, responsible guy, and therefore I find it important
to get balanced news and analysis. So, not only do I enjoy Fox News,
Drudge, Limbaugh, and Coulter, but I also read Democratic Underground,
The Crisis Papers, and The New York Times, to name a few. My question
Many if not nearly all on the left seem to advocate extreme
behavior if not violence when confronting the right, whether in
a protest, dialog, or other venues. For example, Ann Coulter was
pelted with pies, Pat Buchanan doused with salad dressing, and so
on. I see even more examples of outright violence against the opposing
side (Republicans) and I begin to wonder. The Democrats are the
party of tolerance, peace, understanding, and intellectual debate.
Why do I see so much which would lead me to believe otherwise? Certainly
the media hones in on the bad apples. But I have to say, even on
balance, it appears that the left has really gotten out of hand.
What say you?
Auntie Pinko has, I hope, made it quite clear in many past columns
that I advocate neither violence nor rude, childish behavior. Violence,
other than in defense of one's own person or a helpless other from
imminent physical threat, is against my principles. Rude, childish
behavior, regardless of the ideological standpoint of the perpetrator,
is inevitably counterproductive.
That said, I also think that there is considerable room for latitude
in the definition of "violence" and "rude, childish behavior." Attractive
(and dangerous) gray areas exist.
Perhaps it might help to make things clear if I offer my own definitions.
Violence generally comprises actions that intentionally
result in a victim's family or friends waiting anxiously for a doctor's
report; in someone having their home or their means of sustenance
destroyed; or in the sincere fear on the part of the victim that
their (or their family's) life or safety is immediately at extreme
risk. Such actions are unambiguously wrong, and should be regarded
In a gray area are actions that destroy other personal property
than an individual's home or basic means of sustenance; result in
unintentional, relatively minor, injury; or in the victim's worry
about the safety of their property or person. Such actions are usually
wrong, and may be criminal.
In a much lighter gray area are actions that damage property not
owned by individuals; cost resources to protect individuals or property
from a genuine possibility of damage; or express in vigorous and
negative terms angry, hateful feelings and denigrating sentiments
about a person or group of people. Such actions may be wrong, but
may also be part of a legitimate civil disobedience, and an exercise
of freedom of speech (using the Constitutional definition of "speech"
which more closely resembles the common usage of "expression").
However, they might also be criminal, and those undertaking such
actions should expect to experience reasonable consequences if that
is the case.
Rude, childish behavior, on the other hand, is behavior
that expresses negative emotions against an individual, without
regard for their humanity, and with the intent of demeaning them,
humiliating them, and/or demonstrating their inferiority. Such behavior
may or may not involve violence (see above) and may or may not be
criminal. However, it is also generally an exercise of freedom of
(Constitutional definition, again) speech, and may be part of legitimate
civil disobedience. If not violent or criminal, it may still be
reprehensible, but only from the standpoint of good manners and
It is possible to regard someone whose views you oppose as a friend,
and even find occasional common ground. Sometimes you may even succeed
in changing their opinions or turning them into allies. I think
it's interesting to note that Paul Wellstone and Jesse Helms, two
individuals who could not possibly be further apart ideologically,
had considerable respect and personal friendship for one another.
This contributed on more than one occasion, according to Senator
Wellstone, in helping him achieve key goals.
But it's practically impossible to make a friend, or even a temporary
ally, of an individual you have publicly humiliated, or exposed
to ridicule. Ridicule is an influential tool in public debate. Nothing
can impair the power of an idea or the effectiveness of a policy
more than making people regard it as laughable and silly. Pointing
out the folly of some assertion or action is a potent way to weaken
that assertion or action, or render it harmless.
When our ideas or actions are ridiculed, our feelings are hurt,
and we often react negatively. Part of being a mature adult - particularly
in the political arena - is learning to move beyond such criticism,
no matter how stinging, of their actions or words. But when ridicule
is applied, not to words, ideas, or actions, but to individual persons,
it can evoke virulent, long-lasting hostility and enmity. That enmity
can damage both parties, and interfere with important public service.
Pie-ing may be regarded under the category of rude, childish behavior.
In most cases, it would certainly rank as a personal attack, and
an attempt to ridicule not an idea, but a person. It is important
to remember, though, that individuals who consciously transform
themselves into symbols of some ideology, policy, or viewpoint,
tend to attract the hostility that such an ideology, policy, or
viewpoint might provoke. A certain amount of such hostility is (while
it remains rude and childish) pretty predictable, and those who
are sufficiently thin-skinned to take it personally should probably
avoid purposely attracting such symbolic attention to themselves.
Those experienced in taking highly controversial, highly visible
positions learn to deal effectively with such attempts to make them
look ridiculous - it can be done, certainly. Auntie attended, many
years ago, a public event at which the speaker was the victim of
a pie attack. She looked very surprised for a moment (who wouldn't!)
then asked calmly for a towel, and wiped her face to reveal herself
licking her lips and grinning thoughtfully. She turned to the pie-throwers
and said, "Next time, I'd prefer banana cream, if you don't mind,"
and winked at them, evoking a laugh from the audience. She then
took off her jacket, leaned over the podium, and continued talking.
There are certainly incidents of real violence perpetrated by
those on the left. And Ted Rall's "Right
Wing Challenge," on his blog spot last February shows that lefties
can be just as hateful, vicious, and childish as their rightwing
counterparts. Auntie disapproves, definitely. However, "out of hand?"
Compared to Mr. DeLay assertion that those "responsible" for the
many court decisions affirming Michael Schiavo's right to have Mrs.
Schiavo's feeding tube removed will "answer for their behavior"?
And then, a few weeks later at the NRA, saying
that "...when a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want
to have your friends around, preferably armed?"
Or compared to Senator Cornyn's thinly-veiled justification of
violence against judges by those who are angered or frustrated by
the judges' decisions?
In the face of the rising tide of real violence - shootings, bomb
threats, etc., against supposedly "liberal," "activist" judges -
the dry-cleaning bill for some pundit's suit doesn't even begin
to stack up as "out of hand." But thanks for asking Auntie Pinko,
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at
a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking
points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those
pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for
Just send e-mail to: email@example.com,
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in
the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.