Monday, February 25, 2008

The Victimology of the Assassination Mantra

Leave it to The New York Times, which has its problems these days. The paper seems to be newly addicted to third-person, passive openings, as it reports penumbras of concern, first amongst John McCain's former staffers, now voiced by Barack Obama's supporters.

According to The Times

There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Mr. Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.
The solution, of course, is simple. Lock up the left-wing loonies for the duration of the campaign.

Every attempted assassination of an American president or candidate during our lifetimes, with the possible exception of one, has been made by an individual to the political left of his or her target. Given Senator Obama's position on the extreme left of our political spectrum, his risks are low. There just aren't that many people—the potential actors in such a nefarious deed—to his left. Those few who do reside on the left edge of the bell curve are also likely less functional, as most who display one such extreme difference from the rest of society suffer as well from others.

It's not the risk that drives the discussion of this morbid subject, it's the victimology of his adherents.


Anonymous said...

How about the theory propsed by Amil Imani here, that Obama could be at risk from Islamic fanatics that might consider him an apostate (on the theory that as he had a Muslim parent, he was thus a Muslim from the time of conception, and his being a Christian is thus apostasy), which under Islamic Law is punishable by death?

Bob Leibowitz said...

Whether one would consider those folks "left-wing" is open to debate, but certainly "loonies" covers them adequately.

After all, harm to the candidate most sensitive to all the feelings of victimhood in the the third world would hardly seem the most rational approach to advance their standing, would it?