ShareThis Page
A low road to blame |
Featured Commentary

A low road to blame

Jonah Goldberg
| Friday, December 26, 2014 8:57 p.m

Going by objective standards of reason and fairness, Al Sharpton is not to blame for the assassination of two New York City police officers. Nor is New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama or any of the protesters and activists they supported, encouraged and allied themselves with.

Going by what we know, the only person to blame is the man police identified as the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley.

This is the standard I’ve upheld in this column for years, when one madman after another has killed and maimed in the name of one cause or another. It’s also been necessary to uphold this standard when madmen have killed for no political cause whatsoever — but politicians and journalists have been determined to claim otherwise.

The most glaring example of this was the horrible 2011 shooting spree in Tucson that claimed six lives and horribly wounded then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shooting occurred during a period of maximum liberal paranoia about the tea party movement. Much of the elite media convinced themselves — absent any evidence — that the killer, Jared Loughner, was inspired by, variously, Sarah Palin’s Facebook map of congressional races (there were targets over various districts where Palin wanted Democrats defeated), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s overheated speeches and other forms of what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called “eliminationist rhetoric.”

This has become something of a cottage industry for some left-wing activist groups, eager to implicate their political opponents in murder. When a radical Islamic terrorist left a bomb in Times Square, then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg no doubt meant it when he speculated that the culprit was an opponent of ObamaCare.

And some claim conservatives do the same thing when it comes to terrorist attacks from Muslims.

Now we have two New York City policemen dead. The killer’s postings on social media make it abundantly clear he was motivated in part by the intense furor over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. One of Sharpton’s “Million Marchers” mobs reportedly even chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!”

Going by the standards liberals established, Sharpton clearly has blood on his hands (for this cop-slaying and other hate crimes from his earliest days as a race hustler). And the blame hardly ends there if you go by the rules that were applied to Palin and others.

But here’s the problem: Those rules stink.

Sharpton is a special case; he should have been pelted from the public stage decades ago. But it would be ridiculous to believe that De Blasio or Holder — or Obama — wanted this tragedy.

Double standards are seductive. If you’ve been demonized unfairly, it is only human to turn the tables at the first opportunity. Giving in to that temptation, however, leads to madness. Conservatives should take the high road — and liberals should join them — the next time a madman gives them an opportunity to take the low road.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.