Let me be clear: what happened in DC was awful and it looks likely that the demonization of Republicans by the left played a large role in it, so I sympathize with the general thrust of the article. But on the other hand, there's so much bullshit in it that shows the author is partisan enough to ignore facts in favour of ideology whenever convenient, that it doesn't seem particularly helpful in de-escalating and actually doing something about the problem.

Unlike, to give credit where credit is due, the president's statement.

Rejected them in record numbers at every level of government? That's funny, considering Democratic candidates won the popular vote for the presidency by 3 million votes and for the Senate by 11 million. Of course the point that the Democratic elite could do with more introspection about the election outcome is valid enough, but as ruining a valid point by throwing in completely unnecessary bullshit goes, this paragraph is almost Trumpian.

That might be because he fails to reach even the basic semblance of adequacy and competence that used to be the norm in politics. Let's not confuse the issue by trying to pretend Trump is a normal president who deserves a normal amount of respect. Here as well, the issue at hand didn't even require such nonsense and the point could've been made without it; ask yourself what things would've been like with, say, President Ted Cruz, and you'll see that a large part of this atmosphere of hatred on the left would've been there even with a serious Republican president, except maybe for the kind of Republican who is so moderate he/she'd never win the primary anyway.

That rather depends on who 'they' is - certainly, some people on the left are doing that, but if 'they' means Democratic leadership, that's a pretty far-reaching accusation.

Comparing Trump to Hitler is asinine and, I agree, the kind of hateful rhetoric that we can do without. With you there. The second part is another big stretch, though. Not that Pelosi's statement isn't hyperbolic and cheap, but interpreting 'a grave threat to our planet' as a call to violence is pretty silly.

Well, okay, that one's just batshit crazy.







Basically agree with the above, except that a quick check on Wikipedia doesn't back up the bit about Giffords' attacker being left-wing at all (hater of GW Bush, yes, but if those two things were one and the same, one would have to conclude most of the Tea Party is left-wing). Possibly further research would change that.

You could write the above paragraph about rather a long list of left-wing individuals and it would be more or less accurate. That doesn't make it okay or even remotely helpful to write it about 'the political left' as a whole, though. You don't solve the problem of political polarization and demonization of the other side pushing people into violence, by further promoting polarization and further demonizing the other side.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Though the point remains valid even so. There's nothing wrong with focusing first on the faults of the other side, it's what anyone would do - as long as you have the intellectual honesty to then reflect on your own side as well. Maybe not necessarily in the same column - possibly I'm being unfair on this guy. But, like Joe, I can only judge him by the one column.