Play dirty with the voters and eventually they will play dirty back.

There is an old saying in sports that what goes around comes around.  Essentially, if someone plays dirty, it is likely that they will eventually be the victims of dirty play; if you play clean everyone will treat you the same way.  The situation is essentially true in politics as well.  It is happening to the Democrats right now and they don't like it.  Interestingly, instead of cleaning up their act they are resorting to more dirty play as if it would bring about any different results.

Political dirty tricks didn't begin with Richard Nixon and Watergate.  While I was growing up in the People's Republic of Berzerkly, I saw people shouting down the opposition, engaging in back room deals, and using the vote of university students to beat the full time permanent residents of the city in elections.  Then there were acts of political violence that occurred off and on, during the years of the "people's park" riots and "free speech movement."  Some readers will also recall the Black Panther Party that was frequently involved in trouble with the law in Oakland and the surrounding area.  There were bombings of banks and electrical power substations by political dissidents as well.  A thorough review of American history will, no doubt, reveal other questionable and/or illegal activities.  It is likely that a good place to start would be with the Long brothers, Huey and Earl from Louisiana. 

Everyone remembers President Nixon because of the Watergate affair and its aftermath.  Nixon was rightly castigated and forced from office as a result of his actions.  But Richard Nixon was President of the United States and his wrongdoing was of the highest profile because of that.  The actions of others pale in comparison simply because of who he was even more than because of what he did.

It is my opinion that somehow Richard Nixon’s demise polarized American politics to a degree not seen since the War Between the States.  Despite that Republicans and Democrats joined together to remove him from office, a significant number of people still developed an idea that his actions made the Republican party.  The situation, as I see it, became much worse when President Carter failed to win a second term against Ronald Reagan.  It was adding insult to injury that a Republican and political outsider without no Beltway credentials and no Ivy League degree became President; an office that the Democrats believed should have been theirs.  

While the Left has long made a case that political violence is the domain of the Right, in fact, history shows that the Left has an exceptional track record of using violence, perhaps best exemplified by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. In fact, the political violence that I encountered during the 1960's was all on the left.  We can add to that mentioned above the actions of the Weather Underground, the "Symbionese Liberation Army" and the Manson Family.  The major reason why the left so easily falls into violence is detailed by a number of authors in discussions of the philosophy of  "creative destruction."  Joseph Stalin is purportedly the originator of the saying that you "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."  The crux of the matter is that the ends justify the means, and that if you have to kill a few people or millions to achieve a perfect society, then it is worth the price. 

(Hitler was a Leftist, despite popular beliefs to the contrary.  Information on this can be found in the works of John J. Ray the most important of which is here, or Jonah Goldberg's recent work Liberal Fascism.)

Since the 1970's the Left in America has largely discarded outright violence, but they have used intimidation.  One of the more famous incidents involved Chris Simcox at Columbia University, and former leftist turned conservative, David Horowitz has regularly documented the receptions he has received at universities where he was shouted down while attempting to carry out planned speaking engagements. 

There have been other incidents where the Left has been accused of using "rent-a-mobs" to engage in marches and rallies for particular issues.  Now there are incidents where they have used police to suppress dissent, as Congressman Gene Green purportedly did at a town hall meeting north of Houston, Texas.  One attendee alleged on a local radio station that Green told the audience there was no freedom of speech in the building and that they would have to take dissent outside. 

Then there was the case of the town hall meeting in St. Louis where African American Kenneth Gladney was attacked, by people wearing shirts bearing the letters "SEIU" the Service Employees International Union.  A video covering at least part of this incident can be found here .

The reason for these incidents is that American Conservatives are finding their voice and their power after years of being a silent and sometimes non-participating majority.  There are Democrats and independents that are joining in what they believe is a fight for the soul and the future of America.  They do not want to see it turned into a European style socialist regime with an overwhelming governmental presence and a resulting lack of individual rights.  These people have suddenly learned to use some of the same tactics that they have faced for so many years.  They are fighting back against legislators who disagree with them by pointing out who is in charge; by law, it is the voters, not the representatives.  Meanwhile, the power holders are trying to hang on against angry members of the public who have decided that government cannot be trusted any more. 

When a constituent asks Stenny Hoyer why he wants to cram a health care program on the public in three weeks when it took the president to 6 months to pick out a pet dog, he is right.  The voters have a right to be heard, and elected officials should be listening, rather than dictating.  When government transparency goes missing in action and bills are amended at midnight then passed into law just a few hours later, there is something seriously wrong. 

When John Conyers says it is foolish to "read the bill" he is telling the voters that he doesn't give a damn what the bill says or does.  He is saying "Screw the public; it doesn't affect me so why should I care?"  This is particularly true when government officials exempt themselves from what others have to accept.  Something is quite obviously rotten in Denmark. 

The town hall meeting protests, and the people taking on their representatives are part of the democratic process. It is the representatives who are sabotaging the process by refusing to listen to the voters or to answer questions intelligently, or when they make excuses for their misfeasance in office. 

It was a Democrat, Hilary Clinton in 2003, who said that Americans have the right to disagree and to debate with any administration.  Now, it is another Democrat, Barack Obama who disagrees with that view.  No one, it seems, has the right to disagree with him, which may well be why he told his supporters to "get in the faces" of critics during his election campaign.

Why is this happening?  Why are some people supporting his anti-first amendment stance?  Probably because many Democrats believed that they had overwhelming popular support for their agenda.  As such, they were unprepared for organized opposition.  They also quite probably did not believe that such opposition would materialize.  They did not believe that people would organize themselves when provoked.  Now, they are panicking and resorting to force, instead of accepting the fact that they don’t have a mandate. 

What goes around comes around.  The Right has learned from years of observing the Left.  It is unlikely that the Right will resort to actual violence.  That has never been their way, unless pushed against the wall with no other choice.  Let's hope that it doesn't happen and that the folks in Washington DC come to their senses.