Kathleen Parker to the right: Less violent language. Please

by David Safier

Kathleen Parker is my Intelligent Conservative Weather Vane. Every since she said a loud No to Sarah Palin, I've found myself agreeing with much of what she writes and paying attention when I don't, since I know she means what she says. It's not spin or regurgitated talking points.

Today is one of those days when I agree with Parker. On the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, she warns against rhetoric that inflames the crazies to McVeigh-like acts of violence.

[F]ears that anger could escalate into action beyond the ballot box are not misplaced. Ninety-nine percent of angry Americans might be perfectly satisfied to rail at their television sets — or to show up at a Tea Party rally — but it takes only one.

[snip]

[W]ords matter, as we never tire of saying. And these are especially sensitive times, given our first African American president and unavoidable fears about the worst-case scenario. If Jodie Foster could bestir the imagination of Hinckley, a Sarah Palin in the Internet age could move regiments.

[snip]

In Oklahoma, un-ironic legislators are sympathetic to a proposal to form local voluntary militias to thwart unwanted federal initiatives and to preserve state sovereignty.

"Is it scary? It sure is," Tea Party leader Al Gerhart told the Associated Press. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Note to Mr. Gerhart: when their residents go to the polls.

In more tempered remarks, another Oklahoma Tea Party leader, J.W. Berry — whose newsletter boasts the motto "Buy more guns, more bullets" — explained that the militia idea isn't "a far-right crazy plan or anything like that. This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

Reassured?

I hope her fears and mine are needless, but I know I'm not just some liberal bashing conservatives. Parker is one of many people on the other side of the political debate concerned about this.