I've been critical of Josh Marshall for pandering to his liberal audience, so I have to give him and TPM DC blogger Brian Beutler credit for calling out the vile "treason" rhetoric of New York Democrat Eric Massa. (Massa said Chuck Grassley's false claim that health care reform would create "a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma" was "an act of treason.")
With that said, though, note the lengths to which Marshall had to go to avoid antagonizing his audience. The original post had the milquetoast title "That's a Bit Much." Marshall then quickly put up a followup post noting that "We're getting some push back from readers" who demand leniency for extreme rhetoric to match the GOP. He reiterated his opposition to the use of treason accusations in that post in semi-apologetic fashion, but then posted two more reader emails that attempt to justify and contextualize Massa's language. The first engages in brief throat-clearing about how treason is a "very strong word" before switching to a prolonged denunciation of extreme GOP rhetoric, while the second suggests that Massa's status as a cancer survivor somehow excuses his behavior.
Also, it's worth noting that TPM blogger David Kurtz approvingly quoted a reader email calling the GOP "a party of ... treason" back in 2007, though Kurtz "hedge[d]" on the charge of "treason" in a parenthetical.
Why does the word "treason" even suggest itself? Disagreeing with Health Reform doesn't remotely resemble levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
One guess is that for some people the word "treason" has become a pejorative without specific meaning, as has the word, "fascist."
Another guess is that some people may conflate the Democratic Party with the United States to such a degree that they think treason consists of adhering to Enemies of the Democratic Party, giving them Aid and Comfort.
It's barely possible that some people conflate the President with the country. They may believe that opposing the President's plans is like adhering to enemies of the country. However, I don't think anyone would apply this concept equally to Democratic and Republican Presidents.
I'd be interested in other people's ideas as to why the word "treason" even suggests itself.
Posted by: David | August 21, 2009 at 01:46 AM
On the right, charges of treason may resonate. On the left, they just seem silly. I'm guessing that Massa's daring to call it treason is going to be picked up, let alone repeated, by very few on the left.
Why so? Because, as Haidt has found, liberals aren't long on group loyalty, and conservatives are. Rightists take treason seriously. Leftists care only about harmfulness and fairness.
Posted by: James | August 23, 2009 at 03:22 PM
"Disagreeing with Health Reform..."
In the context of Grassley's remark that led to the (admittedly stupid) "treason" charge by Massa, is "disagreeing" supposed to be a new euphemism for "lying?
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 23, 2009 at 04:40 PM