by Tina Grazier
Political issues often involve emotionally charged social outcomes and because of that it’s reasonable to expect to be confronted with a certain amount of verbal insult or offense as we discuss, protest and rally for a given cause or candidate. However, no one should be subjected to violence or harassment because they have chosen to exercise their free speech or voting rights. The following report is indicative of a trend in politics and something that should be of concern to all Americans regardless their political persuasion or position on issues.
“Executive Summary #2328: The Price of Prop 8,” by Thomas M. Messner – Heritage.org
Support for Proposition 8, the democratically established marriage amendment in California, has come with a heavy price for many individuals and institutions that think that marriage should remain the union of husband and wife. Publicly available sources, including evidence submitted in a federal lawsuit in California, show that expressions of support for Prop 8 have generated a range of hostilities and harms that include harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.
Why should anyone trust a report by the Heritage Foundation? The truth is we shouldn’t unless and until we discover for ourselves that they can be trusted. Even then, we should continue to search for information that either validates or discredits their analysis or information. I have come to trust Heritage, but I decided to follow through and check this report out anyway. In my research I read about a Sacramento theater manager that lost his job because of his support of prop 8 and another about a restaurant owner that was boycotted and harassed in her business. Others received white powder in the mail. The following represents only some of what I discovered about this one issue:
Fresno, CA, USA (KFSN) — The fight over proposition 8 is taking a dangerous turn as Fresno Police investigate death threats against the mayor and a prominent valley pastor. ** Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the written threats against Mayor Alan Autry and Cornerstone Pastor Jim Franklin were very detailed and mentioned their participation in a pro-proposition 8 rally this weekend. That’s the California ballot initiative that would ban same sex marriage. “We have significant information regarding threats against Mayor Autry and Pastor Franklin and it’s as a result as their participation on the “Yes on 8″ that occurred here recently,” said Dyer. ** Dyer said the Fresno Police Department is taking the case very seriously and they’re taking extra steps to protect the two men as they investigate. “We’ve already served a search warrant regarding the threats and I have no doubt that we’re going to be making an arrest in the very near future,” said Dyer.
Warning this link contains a XXX rated “death threat letter that was delivered to the doorstep of two out of ten families who had Proposition 8 yard signs stolen from their yards in a California neighborhood on October 21, 2008.”
Citizens who supported California’s Proposition 8 say they are being systematically harassed because of disclosures required by California campaign finance laws. *** The Protect Marriage lawsuit cites examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards received by Prop 8 supporters, including: “Burn in hell.” * “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.” * “I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.” *** The lawsuit also details acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing Prop 8 donors. *** “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties,” Prentice said. “That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8.”
It’s heartening to me that even after being harassed and physically threatened the LDS defense of marriage supporters handled the problem responsibly. They took steps to legally address the laws that allowed political thugs to obtain their address and phone information rather than retaliating with “in kind” behaviors.
Unfortunately the mentality that inspires this kind of intimidation politics is permeating our society; some suggest that leadership plays an important role in encouraging or discouraging this type of behavior. I thought about the past year in politics and realized we witnessed intimidation tactics being used by groups like ACORN or the SEIU in the last election. We saw them later demonstrate intimidation tactics at the homes of corporate lenders, at voting stations, and Tea Party protests. We have learned about ACORN intimidating lenders to make bad loans in their places of work. Many of us were introduced for the first time last year to the Saul Alinsky method of political intimidation that has served as the playbook for left politics for decades.
Now this thug mentality has even reached into our schools as the following article from The American Thinker clearly shows. The piece highlights a letter that tells of the treatment one man’s daughter received after publishing an opinion article in her school paper. Her article expressed disagreement with First Lady Michelle Obama:
High School student in danger for disagreeing with Obama,” by Lloyd Marcus – The American Thinker
“After the article was published, she underwent attacks from African-American students, parents, local church groups, and members of the community. She was called a racist, threatened with a knife, attacked verbally and physically in the hallways at school, and her vehicle tires were slashed in the school parking lot. Members of some local minority organizations even met to discuss how to retaliate against her and a boycott of her school newspaper was launched.”
These examples of actual intimidation and threats perpetrated on ordinary citizens are not just words expressed in anger or frustration on a blog or at a rally. They are not words used to make a point on a talk show. This behavior is extreme, it is radical, and it deserves much greater attention by our media than it receives. Instead we are regularly told by media and leadership in the Democrat Party that opinions, parodies or words of certain talk show hosts are somehow the real danger in America.
Acts of violence and intimidation should not be encouraged or supported. They should not be ignored or trivialized by the media. Yet intimidation is being encouraged by one party and their leader, if not overtly then covertly. The media seems not to notice and this is an outrage. Several remarks made by President Obama, and some of the political tactics used by his party, reflect or encourage negative, violent behavior, ie, “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun”. This kind of talk may be fitting for a union boss or community organizer as he speaks in a privcate meeting but it is most certainly inappropriate for the President of the United States in any setting.
It would be wonderful if we could lift the general level of discourse to a mature and respectful level, if we could bring to our discussions and political competitions a much higher standard. Given that humans are emotional beings and protective of our families that is not likely to happen across the board. Since we are emotional beings making a distinction between heated speech in a discussion and actual instances of intimidation with the intent to block speech or voting rights or to physically harm another becomes extremely important. Having higher expectations when we choose our leaders is also important since they are the ultimate example and set the tone for the nation.
Participation in the political process is a right that all Americans share. It is something we should both respect and work to preserve. Intimidation politics should have no place in the American political process.