Are GOP leaders really less civil?

Image by ragesoss via Flickr

I wrote the other day that conservatives were no less civil than progressives. Then I came across an intriguing twist to this argument by progressive bloggers: neither side’s activists own the moral high ground, but one side’s political and media leaders do. Guess which side that is.

Ezra Klein exonerates Democratic leaders for fear-mongering and spreading rumors while impugning Republicans:

The truly conspiratorial theories of the Bush years were not voiced by those in power. Congressmen and senators did not give much oxygen to the 9/11 truthers. Al Gore did not suggest that towers were detonated to abet a profit-making attack on Baghdad. But seven months into Obama’s presidency, the fringiest of fringe theories are being spoken by decidedly mainstream players. Lou Dobbs and Roy Blunt feed the Birthers. Sarah Palin warns of death panels, and John Boehner says that Obama is opening the door to “government-encouraged euthanasia.”

In a follow-up chat to his WaPo article, Rick Perlstein goes a step further than Klein. Democratic leaders don’t sanction the violent threats of protesters, he writes, while Republicans do:

Some people think “Code Pink” is crazy. Let’s grant that for the sake of argument. Well, Democratic politicians don’t like Code Pink. They don’t encourage Code Pink. In fact, Code Pink feels so alienated from the Democratic Party that one of their leaders is running against Nancy Pelosi.

It is the opposite in the Republican Party today: now people who fairly can be considered leaders (like Rush Limbaugh, and the congressman yesterday who refused to condemn bringing guns to political meetings) have made themselves the frank allies of extremists. And the mainstream media has abetted this in a way they would never do with left wing extremists. When is the last time you saw a member of the Animal Liberation Front on CNN?

It was the same way in the late 1960s with the violent New Left and the Democratic Party. There was NO congressman or senator who supported them. None. Ever.

Let me take these arguments in order. Klein’s argument strikes me as partly correct: During the second Bush administration, Democratic leaders did not retail the false statements, lies, and rumors of progressive activists, though John Kerry’s contention in the 2004 campaign that Bush would likely reinstate the draft is surely an exception to the rule. But his argument is also partly false. Has he forgotten Ted Kennedy’s famous harangue on the Senate floor of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987. Or how about Andrew Sullivan’s contention, one that he continues to hold, that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy or Gloria Steinem’s statement that Palin “shares only a chromosone” with Hillary Clinton. That’s not asymmetric extremism; that symmetric extremism.

Refuting Perlstein’s argument was more difficult. Coming up with examples of Democratic leaders sanctioning the intimidating tactics that he rightly deplores of Republicans wasn’t easy. Then reading the WaPo today, I found an example. The Obama administration, far from condemning the health-care demonstrators who brought guns outside of the town halls, said they were perfectly legal. So Obama is just as bad as Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Boehner, right?

Maybe I am beating a dead horse. Several commentators to my last post acknowledge that neither side’s tactics were morally superior. It’s just that as a blogger I find that it’s hard to let go of what I consider to be a good argument.