Are Republican politicians' speeches responsiblre for followers' violence?

Whenever I mention Republican misdeeds to my Republican spouse, I get "well, Democrats do it too, and just as much or more."

Democrats say the same thing when the shoe's on the other foot, of course.

Neither is a legal defense, folks. If my next door neighbor is a murderer (true, by the way, a few years ago), that doesn't give me a hunting license. I shouldn't have to say this, but both sides use this eight year olds' defense so often I felt the need to mention it.

So here I'm just going to talk about recent Republican behavior. I'll worry about the Democrats' comparable sins when they're out of power again.

It's not enough to read the First Amendment, because over the centuries the Supremes and Congress have sculpted it a lot. A whole lot.

From my readings it seems to boil down to this: political speech is the freest speech of all, with the strictest limitations on legal action. It goes far beyond "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." I get the impression you'd have to be calling for the president to be assassinated at a rally where he was present, and leading the charge, for it to be illegal.

So while it's technically slander to call a Congressman a "baby killer," for example, it's regarded as permissible hyperbole.

My guess is that nothing the Republican leadership/pundits/media hosts are saying is illegal. Or very little, at least.

But there's a second question: does it in fact, legal or not, incite illegal action? This is a sociological question. I think it's obvious that it can.

For example, Fundamentalist Muslim religious authorities have issued fatwas inviting good Muslims to murder novelists they don't like. They've also issued elaborate justifications for suicide murder of innocent civilians, starting with the fine-sounding phrase "it is permissible to..."

Or I believe it has been found not permissible for antiabortionist websites to publish abortion providers' names/home addresses/photos of family members/addresses of schools the children attend, along with check marks through the faces of ones who have been murdered. So it is possible to go over the line legally.

The sociological argument is that morality is social more than individual. If someone hears the government delegitimized, targeted politicians or other demonized, sees this echoed across numerous websites and media outlets--and all of this reinforced by the highest officials of one's party--that sets the stage for vigilantism, and for the vigilante feeling that his actions are actually moral.

Look at the racial lynchings in the South that went on for over half a century. Families would go on picnic outings to see Blacks strung up, even tortured to death. And the townsfolk would be downright festive about it...then go to church on Sunday and congratulate themselves on what fine Christians they were.

Anyone in business learns that the boss has to watch what he says, because his position gives his words what the Polynesians would call mana. And when the House minority leader calls passage of the healthcare reform bill that Teddy Roosevelt had called for "Armageddon," that's legal but irresponsible. Especially when one out of five Republican voters apparently believe Obama is the literal Antichrist.

So while for the average American "Armageddon" sounds like quaint exaggeration, it means something else to those one in fivers.

I conclude that the Republican leadership--not to mention their allies in the media--have been more than irresponsible. They are intentionally stirring up their masses.

I draw this conclusion not just from what they're saying, but from what the listeners are hearing. The average Democrat lives in a world of shades of gray, and is rarely a Christian fundamentalist. The Republican base is largely fervently religious, believes in Good and Evil--do you realize that the best-selling novels in America are the Left Behind series, which focus on describing how Christ and his heavenly army are going to torture Democrats (i.e. Unbelievers--and that includes members of mainstream Christian churches) to death?

You can't understand the scary implications of what the Republican leaders are saying until you hear it through the ears of their more avid followers.