I was struck by today’s response of Sarah Palin to criticism that her rhetoric and “targeting” of Rep. Gifford’s district may have added to the recent massacre in Tucson. In fairness to Palin, the family stated today that Jared Loughner did not watch news or listen to talk radio. However, I was most interested in her claim that the attacks against her and conservative commentators amounted to a “blood libel.”
On her Facebook page, Palin has the following comments:
But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
Of course, she is not speaking of actual libel. Such criticism of the over-the-top rhetoric of conservative commentators is clearly opinion and not defamation.
“Blood libel” is a term usually associated with religious groups who are accused to killing innocents. Blood libels have a strong anti-Semitic history, such as claims that Jews feed on the flesh or blood of innocent children. For that reason, the Anti-Defamation League has denounced the use of the term — though I do not believe that the simple use of this term is evidence of any anti-semiticism by Palin.
That is a pretty loaded term to use for the criticism over violent terminology and over-heated rhetoric. Indeed, it seems to emphasize a degree of persecution. There is probably some distance between dueling and discourse.
The closest term in torts is “group libel” which (as discussed earlier) is generally difficult to establish.
If either term is relevant, there appears to be an ongoing effort on both sides to tag the other with the massacre. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information. . . [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”
Limbaugh has reportedly fired back by saying that the Democratic Party supports Loughner and is “attempting to find anybody but him to blame.”
In the meantime, members are moving toward a spasm of new laws to criminalize speech.
There is of course another obvious possibility: Loughner is mentally unstable and fully motivated by his own personal demons. Of course, this does not mean that we should not reexamine the rhetoric of our politics.
Frankly, I also share the concern of conservative commentators with politicians like Bernie Sanders (who I agree with on many issues) referring to the massacre in fundraising appeals. This massacre has somehow become about the politicians as opposed to the killer or the victims. That alone says something about the state of our politics.
Jonathan Turley
BBB,
“The level of respect can increase, but it cannot be nonexistent to start.”
Oh yes it can.
Until I get a sense of who somebody is, I treat everyone as a blank.
They start at zero and either work their way to one or negative one.
That’s the very definition of earned not due.
Ask any of the long time regulars or the Prof if that isn’t my M.O. to those not blatantly trolling.
I don’t owe anyone respect except my parents and grandparents.
The rest of the world rises and falls by their own merit.
rafflaw,
Do the crosshairs of a scope extend beyond the circle? No.
Do the crosshairs of a surveyor’s mark extend beyond the circle? Yes.
Do the crosshairs on Palin’s Map extend beyond the circle? Yes.
Did Palin possibly play to the ignorance of the American People? Maybe. Am I impressed when people jump up and down screaming “I’m ignorant”? Not so much. 🙂
rafflaw,
You made a mistake and I have to take you to task – it’s gunsights not gun sites… (Sorry, I lost control of my inner grammarian for a second there ;-)) Other than that you did a nice job of pointing out that, although all of the individual bits have plausible alternate explanations, when you put all the bits together you get a clear picture of the intent and none of those plausible alternatives fit all of the facts.
rafflaw,
Get back to me when you have a question that I can answer without having to read the minds of others. The Palin Camp doesn’t consult me.
BIL,
“When politicians start talking about ideas that actually benefit the majority of the American populace instead of just their “major campaign contributors”, then they might start earning respect AND get those ideas talked about, BBB. As long as they play their “lil’ partisan money-whore game”? Eh, disrespect is exactly what they’ve earned. No matter their party affiliation.”
I am in complete agreement.
BBB,
Sorry to get back in this thread so late, but if you really think that Sarah Palin’s cross hairs were actually surveyor’s marks, then I have two questions for you. Why did they take the page off their website within minutes of the shooting? and,
Why didn’t they state that back in March( I believe it was March)when Giffords was on the air complaining and warning about those gun sites?
BBB,
Okay, let’s talk about the idea that our president put forward that extreme rhetoric (and the demonization and delegitimization of opponents) has made our civil discourse toxic and needs to be eliminated for the good of our society. How do you think that should be accomplished?
BIL,
“It’s a funny thing about both respect and disrespect. They are not automatically due from people capable of independent thought. They are earned.”
That’s where we have a fundamental disagreement. In order to function in society a certain level of respect (not just courtesy) must be granted to those we don’t know. The level of respect can increase, but it cannot be nonexistent to start.
If you start by having no respect for your opponent, or their capabilities, you are likely to find yourself at a severe disadvantage in a very short period of time.
BBB,
You attack another person with an obvious falsehood, then try and change the subject when you got called on it.
See,”
BBB 1, January 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Slartibartfast,
So you really think a site whose tag line is “Real Liberal Politics” and has a direct link to “Top Sarah Palin Posts” has any journalistic value?
The author of the article you quoted is not a journalist, she’s a sensationalist. Read her article “Democratic Congresswoman Shot in Head Was On Sarah Palin’s Hit List”. You will see that Jones planted the seeds. She even went do far as to plant the seed putting blood on Palin’s hands.
I don’t like blue pigs and better than I like red pigs. Sarah Jones is a blue pig.
#
310 BBB 1, January 14, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Slartibartfast,
I forgot to add; Sarah Jones was also the one to turn Surveyor’s Marks into sniper scopes.”
THEN, you have the gall to say “I want to talk about ideas, not people.”
That’s one of the places I draw the line, I’m done with you on this topic. Have fun pretending the big bad meanies are picking on poor innocent Sarah Palin, who would NEVER do anything to draw attention to here self.
When politicians start talking about ideas that actually benefit the majority of the American populace instead of just their “major campaign contributors”, then they might start earning respect AND get those ideas talked about, BBB. As long as they play their “lil’ partisan money-whore game”? Eh, disrespect is exactly what they’ve earned. No matter their party affiliation.
Gyges,
“It was because listening to Palin talk reminds me of a performance art piece I once saw.”
I can’t stand listening to Palin talk. That doesn’t give me an excuse to treat her unfairly. In person, out of the spotlight and scrutiny of the media, she might be a very nice person. I’d say the same thing about Al Gore (although he just puts me to sleep).
I’m quickly growing tired of the pettiness and lack of respect shown to all politicians. Yesterday, Former Federal LEO posted a quote attributed to E. Roosevelt.
“Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
I’m ready to get back to discussing ideas. Not just what’s wrong, but how to correct what’s wrong.
Anybody can complain about what’s going on, but the really smart people will put aside the petty differences and arrive at a solution that involves compromise. The kind that can only be accomplished when we return to having mutual respect.
It’s a funny thing about both respect and disrespect. They are not automatically due from people capable of independent thought. They are earned.
BBB,
Um, so let me get this straight:
Sarah Palin’s website had a graphic that had what may or may not have been intended to be cross hairs on a rifle scope.
You say that they were obviously surveyors marks.
She’d previously described them as “bulls-eyes,” the context on the surrounding page no way suggests surveyors marks, and in fact the larger context of Sarah Palin’s speech is filled with all sorts of gun metaphors.
I point all that information out to you.
And your response is “Well the democratic party had a similar graphic with targets on it.”
That’s supposed to make sense?
I DON’T CARE what the Democratic Party did. I’m not a Democrat, I don’t choose who I vote for based on their party. If Sarah Palin was a Democrat, I’d make fun of her just as much.
All of that has nothing to do with the fact that you got caught trying to propagate an incredibly obvious and clumsy lie.
Buckeye,
I don’t have the time or the inclination to scour the web looking for the imagery used by every Democrat. I’ll leave that to the people who get paid to research it.
The only reason we’re even having this discussion is that Palin’s use of the imagery was attributed to the Arizona shootings without anything to support it. The blame for that lies with partisan journalists. I remember a time when journalists would lose their job for that kind of reporting.
It’s not the imagery as much as it is the general lack of civility in political discourse. That’s caused by a lack of mutual respect, and that disrespect has come to be accepted. Try to stop it. You’ll immediately be told that if you don’t like it, don’t read it, or turn it off. The virtual world we created has become a place for incivility to thrive.
B,B,BBB
For Whatever reason I had a brief flash of my Mom saying “I don’t care what your friends did YOU should know better.”
BBB,
The sophisticated wasn’t because the website used targeting images. It was because listening to Palin talk reminds me of a performance art piece I once saw. This lady took the Bible, tore out pages, cut them randomly into bits using safety scissors (I asked her about that later, she forgot the ones she meant to use and it was the only pair they had at the near by 7-11), and then reassembled the pieces randomly and read them aloud.
She’s not a master wordsmith.
Gyges,
Your “mixed metaphor” combined with “It’s time to Take a Stand” was rebuffed by bulls-eyes, the word “enemy”, and the phrase “ripe targets for Democrats”, and you come back with; “What does that have to do with if the cross hairs are meant to be surveyors marks?”
You may now return to your seat on the Blue Pig bench.
Buckeye,
Kucinich get it. As in “all of”.
Kucinich for President – 2012
evasion \i-ˈvā-zhən, ē-\, n.,
1: a means of evading : dodge
2: the act or an instance of evading : escape (suspected of tax evasion)
BBB
Is any other gun imagery available on Democratic sites? Has any Democrat candidate used that imagery constantly for 2 years as Ms. Palin has in almost every speech?
Both sides should, of course, cease and desist, but it’s more than the mythos of guns being “patriotic” – it’s the continual demonization of one’s opponents. And both sides fall into that trap, though it’s often not the politicians themselves, but their puppets on the talk shows.
I see no way of stopping that until the candidates insist on it. When they all feel equally endangered, which they now are, whether they actually realize it or not, maybe they will make some effort at more responsible speech.
Ed Schultz had Dennis Kucinich on tonight trying to get him to agree that people were going to die if healthcare reform wasn’t implemented. DK kept trying to lower the tone which only drove ES to make ever more bombastic remarks. And DK is no slouch at making bombastic remarks.
When it finally penetrates that all politicians and all citizens are endangered by this hyperbole, maybe – maybe, civility will return. Dennis Kucinich has evidently got the message.
BBB,
So The Democratic Party did something bad once, O.k.
What does that have to do with if the cross hairs are meant to be surveyors marks?