Hillary Clinton Suggests “Inflammatory” Speech Caused Charleston

Hillary Clinton smiling with hands up during speech

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” [Hillary] Clinton said in an interview with KNPB’s Jon Ralston. “But unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable.”

“For example,” the former secretary of state added, “a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns.” [politico.com 6/19/15]

Hillary Clinton is, of course, talking about Donald Trump. She’s referring to comments he made earlier in the week about Mexicans and immigrants:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump told the audience. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”

Actually, Trump’s comments have credibility. For one thing, he’s not saying this is true of all Mexicans. For another, he’s right to assume that any immigrants — not just Mexicans, but any immigrants– who come to the United States, which is now a multi-trillion dollar welfare state, may well be coming for the freebies. If America did not have a welfare state, we would not have to be concerned about immigrants at all (other than known criminals or terrorists); and our social system of freedom would have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by having a liberal immigration policy.

But Mexicans and immigration are not Clinton’s point here. Her point is that comments she perceives as racist (or otherwise “inflammatory”) can make people do violent things.

How does she know this? And does this apply when people with her own opinions say strong, opinionated things about ideas or people with whom they disagree?

Clinton’s premise is that emotions and ideas are not merely influential or powerful, but can force people to do things against their will. In other words, if I say something to you that results in your being angry or upset, then I — not you, but I — am responsible for what you do after I say these hurtful or upsetting things; even if you open fire on a church.

How can this be so? It is not possible to “make” people feel or think anything that they don’t conclude with their own minds (leaving aside outright lies or fraud, which is admittedly different).

Clinton’s remarks are psychologically false, and ethically reprehensible.

If you say insulting or hurtful things to me, I am responsible for how I choose to cope with the things you say. If I’m really rational and mentally strong, I will consider the content of what you’re saying, consider the source (i.e. you), and determine from there if your comments, insults and hostility even merit any attention.

If I’m less rational or strong, I might just feel hurt, emotional pain or discomfort. I might limp into my humble corner and think, “Oh, my, somebody doesn’t like me. I must be a rotten and bad person.”

Or, I could be equally irrational and weak, but handle it aggressively rather than humbly. I could start verbally insulting other people, even strangers, in retaliation for what you said to hurt my feelings. I might punch an innocent person in the face. Or I might even open fire on innocent people out in public.

If I followed this last option, would you be responsible for my actions? Or would I be the one responsible?

In psychology, this phenomenon of taking out your anger or frustration on innocent parties is referred to as displaced anger, or displaced aggression. The psychological problem and error resides in the person who is displacing the anger — not in the person who upset or hurt you (although he or she may have his or her own issues.)

Hillary Clinton is wrong — deadly wrong, given her suggestion that Donald Trump (or anyone who disagrees with her) is partly to blame for what happened in Charleston. She’s clearly implying that the person who “makes” the other person feel upset is just as responsible for the evil deed (murders in Charleston) as the person who actually did them. In these comments, she’s all but saying, “Donald Trump and others like him spread ideas and attitudes that I consider racist. When they do that, they cause someone to go off the deep end and start shooting people.”

If it’s true that racist comments — comments that Hillary Clinton and people with her political perspective consider racist, not necessarily anyone else — can cause horrific and unspeakable acts of violence and murder to occur, then we had better make those comments illegal. Or at least intimidate people into not speaking their minds and saying what they think.

Remember, Hillary Clinton is running for the most powerful political position in the world. When someone doing that says we must deem it “unacceptable” for people to say certain things publicly, then she’s setting the table for censorship. If someone on the conservative or Christian right running for president said that we must call it unacceptable to say things that favor gay marriage or abortion, for example, people would correctly wonder if this means that censorship could be recommended in those cases. Hillary Clinton must be asked the same question here.

We will never get an honest answer, of course; and Hillary Clinton will not be asked any hard questions in her campaign for president, for whatever reasons, because most of the media favors people with her socialist, “progressive,” left-of-center point-of-view.

The fact remains: Your words (absent illegal fraud) cannot “make” anyone do anything, particularly something so monstrous and calculated as murdering innocent people.

Incidentally, Donald Trump’s official response to Hillary Clinton was as follows:

“Mr. Trump believes that Hillary Clinton does not have any credibility when she blames words for violence. This is the same politician who lied to the world after she failed to take proper steps to secure the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and falsely blamed the radical Islamic attack on a YouTube video. This is the same person who illegally deleted her emails after getting a subpoena from the U.S. Congress. It is totally inappropriate for Mrs. Clinton to exploit this terrible tragedy and use it as an opportunity to attack Donald Trump. She must be nervous about something.”

There’s a lot of outrage and unhappiness over what recently happened in South Carolina, and justifiably so. Why isn’t there any widespread reaction to, or criticism of, the outrageous and inaccurate things that Hillary Clinton has implied about free well, free speech and legal/moral responsibility for one’s actions?

Trump is right, that Clinton is exploiting a tragedy. In a sense, people like her have nothing to be nervous about. No matter what they say or do in their mentally drunken quest for power, we keep giving them more power. But people like Hillary Clinton are fundamentally at war with reason, reality, common sense and basic justice. It’s not possible to be serene when you espouse the ideas she claims; not if you’re playing political games to acquire power, and even less so if you really believe them.

 

Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1