SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Maybe Find A Better Defense Of Michele Bachmann

JONATHAN CHAIT JANUARY 13, 2011

Maybe Find A Better Defense Of Michele Bachmann

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

A few days ago, Paul Krugman noted that famously unhinged member of Congress Michele Bachmann urged her constituents to be 'armed and dangerous." Wall Street Journal right-wing blogger James Taranto calls this a "lie," and insists the the context of Bachmann's full quote is very different. Here, per Taranto, is the context:

But you can get all the latest information on this event, this . . . a must-go-to event with this Chris Horner. People will learn . . . it will be fascinating. We met with Chris Horner last week, 20 members of Congress. It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people--we the people--are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information.

So wait -- your defense of Bachmann is that, in the context of urging her followers to be "armed and dangerous," she immediately proceeded to extol the benefits of armed revolution? This is supposed to be exculpatory? I think it's a perfect example of the right's hysteria directly legitimizing violence.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

13 comments

It is a perfect example. And James Taranto is a fool. Case closed.

- liberal reformer

January 13, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I more or less agree with Robert Wright's assessment that the problem is not so much in the violence embedded in the rhetoric, but in how the stakes are presented in such apocalyptic terms, and the adversary presented as so alien. I would have highlighted the part where she says, "we the people are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." Once she raises the issue du jour to the level of an existential threat, she doesn't even need violent language like "armed and dangerous", because her listeners will fill in the blanks for themselves.

- Fishpeddler

January 13, 2011 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon, you're way off on this. Michelle Bachmann says enough stupid things that you don't have to stretch so hard to misread this one. The context makes clear that the "armed and dangerous" quote refers to being armed with information which would be dangerous in an argument. As for the reference to revolution, there is no reference to violent revolution. I'll admit I'm familiar with the Jefferson quote, but not its context, so I don't know if it was limited to armed revolutions. That said, the term "revolution" is obviously not limited to violence, particularly in American politics. I know you've taken some heat for defending Palin, but you don't need to work so hard to reestablish your liberal bona fides.

- bigm

January 13, 2011 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ah bigm ... always wonderful to hear from you. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's the full Jefferson quote. Not a metaphor, by the way, given that the US had just lived through revolution and war. Better luck next time you try to defend a deranged and dangerous lunatic Republic office holder.

- icarusr

January 13, 2011 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, bigm, are you saying that she really meant that a scientific revolution every now and then was a good thing, and just mistakenly cited Thomas Jefferson instead of Thomas Kuhn? That's a minor speaking mistake that you could see anyone making.

- JEFF FREY

January 13, 2011 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr, I think you read the post too literally.

- JEFF FREY

January 13, 2011 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too bad MTV's Celebrity Death Match is no more. A Palin versus Bachman bout would have been great fun.

- Bukharin

January 13, 2011 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Context is indeed all: " . . . what we’re really getting here is we’re not just getting single-payer care. We’re getting full on Russian gulag, Soviet-style gulag health care . . . " Rep. John Shadegg, R-AZ, 10/13/2009 " . . . I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing . . . " Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-MN, 3/23/2009 “Fellow patriots, we have a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution, and they’re right down the Mall, in the Congress of the United States—and right down Independence Avenue in the White House that belongs to us . . . " Rep. Paul Broun, R-GA, 4/21/2010 . . . and on and on. And since Sarah Palin liked to play guilt-by-association that was a pretty big stretch (remember William Ayres?), well then, is it really unfair to associate Sarah Palin with Bachmann and co.?

- timteeter

January 13, 2011 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think who you're addressing matters. If I used the "armed and dangerous" speech in a soap box elocution to my liberal friends, they would, to a person, understand it as a metaphor. If I used it with the Palin-loving ones, they would, almost to a person, understand it is as suggesting a call to physical action. Fortunately, 99.999% of such folks would still not go "armed and dangerous" over the issue because, while they routinely pander in their imagination and over-beers posturing to their own puerile notion that they are the victims of over-taxing, freedom-denying, tyrannical liberal regime and the true defenders of liberty just "this" close to the breaking point, they are really mostly invested in enjoying the victimhood of that notion, not to changing it through any method whatsoever, and certainly not through violence. And, beyond that, they are basically decent people who simply don't go around committing political violence.

- IowaBeauty

January 13, 2011 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, Icarus. I missed where Bachmann talked about the blood of tyrants, etc. I have no doubt that her audience would have instantly recognized the origins of the Jefferson quote, however, and would have taken it as a call for violence armed with the written materials Bachmann was providing. (Perhaps a fleet of deadly paper airplanes?) That's much more plausible than them thinking she was referring to a non-violent revolution, like the Republican Revolution of 1994, etc. And you're so right that I'm a Republican stooge defending a "Republic office holder". That's why I noted that Bachmann says so many stupid things.

- bigm

January 13, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

actually, I am with bigm on this. armed and dangerous refers to pamphlets, the Jefferson quote is just because she is an idiot. Just read this: And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. She is on perpetual hyperbolic mode. Yes, a few pamphlets are going to change the dynamic of freedom FOREVER AND EVER until Jeebus comes sometimes soon, and boy will he smoke them liberal's asses. The problem with Bachmann is she has now become like the cat lady from the Simpsons. The Republican hierarchy shut her out completely.

- blackton

January 13, 2011 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the other Jefferson quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them." Scoff all you want - the issue is that the metaphors and the reality are merging; and you cannot constantly speak in the language of war and expect all your listeners to understand that you are simply referring to an information rebellion.

- icarusr

January 13, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

EJ Dionne has a piece up on this website today with a short list of Republicans saying that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable us to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. If you want a long list of people who've taken this "fight back against tyranny" insanity seriously, go to: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline. This highlights where "both sides do it" breaks down. I'll assume, either arguendo or because it's true, that the Left has people as crazy as Bachmann. But, when they pipe up with nonsense, most mainstream liberals and other people who want to be seen as decent don't come to their defense.

- Geoff G

January 13, 2011 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close