Remember way back when -- in the before time, in the long, long ago -- when the media lost their collective minds after Donald Trump talked at a rally about there being a 'bloodbath' in the economy and the auto market if he didn't win the election in November?
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was just last week.
Yes, the outrage machine was flowing stronger than the rapids in the Colorado River from our moral, intellectual, and spiritual betters in the corporate media. It didn't even matter when they were shown -- multiple times -- how they had used the same word in a political context. Nor did it matter when they were shown how their hero Joe Biden had done the same.
Nope. Their narrative was set. Trump was obviously inciting another INSURRECTION ... or something. How else could anyone explain using such violent speech to talk about politics?
Welp. It turns out that the media's memory is shorter than Robert Reich. Just yesterday, Politico reporter Gary Fineout forgot all about the 'bloodbath' hysteria as he described Trump planning to 'take out' Laurel Lee, a Florida Congressional representative who happens to be a DeSantis supporter.
Trump calls on Republicans to take out DeSantis' lone Florida supporter in Congress https://t.co/NLPpdmsedM via @politico
— Gary Fineout (@fineout) March 25, 2024
I was shocked that Trump would once again use such violent language. Didn't he learn his lesson?
Except that's not what happened. Here is what Trump ACTUALLY said:
“Any great MAGA Republicans looking to run against Laurel Lee in Florida’s 15th Congressional District? IF SO, PLEASE STEP FORWARD!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Ohhhhh. So, he wanted to see if he had a supporter who could challenge Lee in a primary. Otherwise known as, something that happens in intra-party politics, Democrat AND Republican, in virtually every election.
If you are wondering if Joe Scarborough and Mike Brzezinski voiced their outrage at Fineout for using such incendiary language, think again. It never happened. Because they don't play by the rules they set for us.
To begin, I am not interested in talking about the wisdom of Trump going after Lee. It seems like a politically dumb move to me. In my opinion, he should be courting DeSantis supporters, not attacking them (there were plenty of similar reactions on social media).
But that is a topic for another time. I just want to talk about the latest example of sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy by the media. And also about aggressive speech in American politics.
First, the hypocrisy. Politico wrote no fewer than 10 articles expressing horror at Trump's 'bloodbath' comment (which they deliberately took out of context. Here are a few examples:
Trump says country faces ‘bloodbath’ if Biden wins in November https://t.co/qVsIWIMmvc
— POLITICO (@politico) March 16, 2024
Reaction to Trump's speech: When is ‘a bloodbath’ not a bloodbath? https://t.co/ZDSNNt9VRG
— POLITICO (@politico) March 17, 2024
Biden campaign cuts a digital ad using Trump’s ‘bloodbath’ remarks https://t.co/EHNHp9p2oF
— POLITICO (@politico) March 18, 2024
It is not an exaggeration to say they were more obsessed with bloodbaths than Stanley Kubrick was in making The Shining.
Yet, just one short week later, here was Politico's Fineout freely talking about 'taking someone out' (another misrepresentation) with not even a nod to the hypocrisy of his choice of words.
Call us crazy, but we're pretty sure Fineout meant 'take out' in the Goodfellas sense of the phrase. He wasn't talking about a first date of dinner and drinks, that's for certain.
I guess “run against” doesn’t get the likes.
— Ghostman794 (@Ghostman7940) March 25, 2024
“Take out”?
— Walter (@mywalterego) March 25, 2024
Where did he say that?
He said run against. But I understand your pathological need for hyperbole in support of your mania.
what a dishonest headline.................
— Aminah (@aminahcmj) March 25, 2024
Violent speech is OK when THEY do it. Don't you know that already?
Moving beyond the hypocrisy, in the end, I don't think there is anything wrong with what Trump said in context OR what Fineout said. Obviously, what he said was a lie, but I'm used to that from the media. But in principle, if he was being honest, using the expression 'take out' was perfectly fine. It was clearly a metaphor, as was 'bloodbath.'
Historically, violent rhetoric has been a part of American politics since the nation was founded. Thomas Jefferson famously advised Americans, 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' (And Jefferson was NOT being metaphorical the way politicians are today. He honestly thought it was a good idea for the people to rise up from time to time to keep the government honest.)
Over the ensuing centuries, politicians of all parties have regularly peppered their speeches with violent -- or at least belligerent -- language. 'We will fight,' 'We will take our country back,' and similar expressions. Nothing to rise to the level of Jefferson, but nothing to clutch our pearls at either.
Even very recently, Biden has said things like how he would like to 'take Trump out back and beat the hell out of him.' And no one can forget, in the atmosphere of the 2020 George Floyd riots, Democrats encouraging people to take to the streets, and Nancy Pelosi wondering why there are not more political uprisings across the country.
Funny though, I don't recall the media becoming hysterical about those statements.
Of course, that is the double standard. When Gabby Giffords was tragically shot by a madman in 2011, the media blamed Sarah Palin. Why? Because Palin had a political map with districts she wanted to target for Republican victories, and Giffords' AZ-8 was one of them. But when Chuck Schumer told SCOTUS justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch that they would 'reap the whirlwind' if they overturned Roe v. Wade, the media made no attempts to tie that speech to another deranged lunatic who later sought to assassinate Kavanaugh and his family.
Is violent political speech constructive? Perhaps not, but it is the reality in a country where free speech is our most precious freedom.
If we had a media that still believed in the principle of free speech -- for everyone, journalists would recognize this and either condemn violent expressions among ALL politicians or they would stand up for freedom of expression everywhere, not just for themselves and their favored elected officials.
I would prefer the latter. The former is a dangerous path and one from which there is often no coming back. And woe to the person who thinks that eventuality is OK because they are on 'the right side of history.' You need look no further back than China's Cultural Revolution to know that no one is safe when free speech for all is not protected.
But, sadly, we will get neither from American media. They will continue to feign outrage at -- and call for silencing of -- Republican rhetoric while turning a blind eye to the same from Democrats.
Over the last week, Politico and Gary Fineout have proven this to be true. And I can't think of anything more dangerous to America than free speech for some, but not for all.
