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
http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/2732600158 How Glen Beck has been responsible for three assassination attempts.
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts, obfuscate!
“I would appreciate it if you directed questions or comments to me rather than talk about me.”
“He is quite competent in obfuscation” makes it personal, and it makes it time to end my participation in this thread.”
BBB,
I purposely didn’t direct my comments towards you because it wasn’t my intent to get caught up in the word games you play, by creating a back and forth debate. One of the main problems in political discourse these days given the supremacy of so-called news networks and their punditry, is that of the use of equivalency in commenting on issues. One’s political persuasion often leads to rooting for and defending the team (party)right or wrong. With equivalency used as a pretext for impartiality
in a debate such as evolution vs. creationism both sides positions are given equal values, where one position is sober and evidence-based and the other is simply a matter of myth and faith.
That the Teabaggers and other extreme members of the right wing have used dangerous rhetoric with an implication of violence is
factual and easily proven. There is no equivalent in the Democratic party and on the left wing in their rhetoric. Could you find some obscure left wing idiot who is just a crazy in tone of course, but that person simply is someone with no standing except in their own imagination. Alan Cranston’s remarks, while strong in no way compare with the Becks, Palins, Limbaughs, etc. in ratcheting up a climate of hate and fear and
Mr. Cranston certainly represented a more extreme take than establishment Democrats.
As to my specific feelings on this issue I specifically remarked early on that this was the act of an insane man and using it for commentary on the general morass of debate in this country was invalid. I decried the use of this tragedy by individuals on both sides as being self serving and uncalled for. However, the underlying issue of this thread has not been Tuscon per se, or even Palin for that matter. This is about the erosion of our political system brought about by the specific tactics used by Republicans and Radical Right-Wingers to paint liberals and progressives as traitorous and totalitarian.
You are no doubt a highly intelligent person and indeed I was paying you a compliment, in a left-handed way, for your defense of an untenable position. Saying someone is “quite competent in obfuscation” is a rather mild insult and you have certainly gone far beyond that in your defense of your position, as have those debating with you. I have read but partaken little on this thread simply because I see no profit in debating what I consider to be un-debateable and also because my positions have been well represented. Like you, but for different reasons I also end my participation in this thread.
BIL,
It leaves a horrible stain.
Even on brown.
I just wanted to point out how much I enjoyed the end of your post 🙂
Lemur,
Your type of conspiracy theories are toxic to this country. I wish I could dismiss you as a lone crank, or an internet troll, but there are far too many people who believe the same Glen Beck drivel that you’re spouting.
BBB,
Deviated? Nah. More like sank your partisan love boat excursion.
I’ll respond to whatever I chose, however I chose. There is only one person here who can stop me and you ain’t him. There are a few people here who can ask me to stop and I’ll consider it but even that is no guarantee I’ll stop. Again, you fall outside that Venn diagram. You don’t like my posts? Don’t read them.
But don’t presume to tell me whom or what to ignore.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Nope. Don’t think so, Ozzie. That’ll get you nothing but the finger.
Marcus Aurelius said, “I seek only the truth, by which no man was ever harmed.”
And I’ll do it by any means I choose.
Let’s be clear: I’m not for civility simply for the sake of civility. The time for civility is past in discussing American politics. It died the day Bush suspended habeas corpus and ordered torture. Harsh times and criminal actions by those entrusted to act on the interests of ALL citizens calls for hard words. I choose mockery and sarcasm coupled with logical analysis.
I’m for not inciting violence. I’ve warned it’s an inevitable consequence of the venal stupidity of those in Washington and industry, but that’s not incitement. That’s cautionary.
I’m for taking back the government from the monied special interests and restoring the Constitution.
If that means hurting some feelings? Too bad. They’re words. If I’m not intimating you hurt somebody because that’s where the line is drawn. But did the harsh, but true, words hurt somebody’s widdle feelin’s?
I don’t care.
Grow the Hell up.
This isn’t Kindergarten.
They’re words, not a pointed stick. And if you let words alone hurt you (absent something truly inhuman like making fun of a deceased loved one)? You’re acting like a child.
I’m not advocating that you read or treat other posters in any way other than how you choose – unlike you who have presumed to lecture me that about more than once now.
I’m advocating that if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.
Some alligators you simply can’t stop.
Which leaves you with the option of avoidance or the risk of getting bit and/or eaten.
Again, for clarity, if YOU don’t like what I post?
Don’t read it.
———-
Lemur,
I know that 17 of the 50 lemur species are considered endangered but I always thought it was because of encroachment on their natural habitat, not partisan hackery and stupidity. The left cannot be about “control over everyone” – that’s authoritarianism (or its cousin totalitarianism) and authoritarianism is a rightist political ideology that has as one of its primary features a disregard for both civil and human rights as well as the rule of law. Since the left embrace both civil and human rights as well as the rule of law? That just goes to show how ass backwards your (brainwashed) thinking really is.
Nice propaganda regurgitation though.
You might want to clean some of that Beck off your shirt though.
It leaves a horrible stain.
Even on brown.
Mr. Spindell,
In the context of this law blog, it is the tangent’s that make it worth my while to drop in on occasion. While many find value in the posts and answers, to me it makes me sick in the soul. News, with an intelligent twist.
But I love what a few people here have done with their lives, which I only get glimpses of – you being one of them.
BBB:
maybe someday you will understand the nature of the left. You cannot share with them, they want it all. They want their way or else. They want power over people and nothing less will do.
If they truly wanted to help people they would create an environment that would allow wealth creation to thrive. That is the only way to get rid of poverty.
As they so ably point out “Reagan was responsible for the largest tax increase in history”. So let it happen again and their will be plenty of money for social programs. But then if all but a few are unemployed there is no power to be gained.
Dependency is what they thrive on and need to sustain their power. You cannot compromise with people like that.
Lemur:
apparently you think the left is in a submissive position?
I looked up Tea Bagger on wikipedia and this is what they had to say:
“It is an activity used within the context of BDSM and male dominance, with a dominant man tea bagging his submissive partner ….”
I must strenuously disagree.
Lemur,
Since you posted before I posted my last comment, I will respond.
I’m not interested in pointing fingers. Both sides are guilty of using tactics that decrease the level of civility. Both sides attack the person instead of the ideas.
Them, they’re, they, the left, the right, the list goes on and on. It needs to stop.
Yesterday the body of Judge John Roll was laid to rest. By all accounts, he was a good man and a good judge. Yet, on this legal blog, not a mention of his name. He was not honored in any way. That’s a good indication of the sad state our country is in.
I’ll see you all on another thread.
Mike Spindell,
“I’d again jump into this fray but it would only add to the ganging up on poor BBB. He is quite competent in obfuscation, but really he is on the end of a losing proposition.”
I would appreciate it if you directed questions or comments to me rather than talk about me.
This was a discussion about the words and symbolism used by Sarah Palin. I pointed out that both sides are guilty. The response (reminiscent of playground silliness) was ‘but they did it more’. I recognize that defending anything Palin on this blog will be a burden which I must carry alone. That burden becomes heavier when the response becomes personal. “He is quite competent in obfuscation” makes it personal, and it makes it time to end my participation in this thread.
“BBB you’re good, but in the end your rhetorical gyrations simply aren’t persuasive.”
I used every word I knew in attempt to stop the alligators from devouring the gazelle, but in the end, the alligators did what alligators do. Should I be upset because the alligators were not persuaded? I think not. 🙂
BBB:
I think you are correct, the left has been a bunch of assholes for years. Starting in the 30’s, they have used every type of propaganda and hate speech. It escalated in the 60’s and was sustained well into the late 80’s until more conservative viewpoint was able to establish a small beach head in national discourse.
The right and specifically the Tea Party are taking the lefts play book and using it against them. The left doesn’t like it. I know that our “target” is to destroy the left as a viable political force in this country. They have had over a hundred years to make their ideas work:
Public Schools
Unions
Social Security
Medicare
public libraries (their only good idea)
progressive taxation
foreign aid
ineffective business regulation
government funding of the arts and sciences
the perversion of our Constitution and founding documents
The list of their failures goes on and on. The right has historically been ineffectual in stopping it because of a lack of a cogent philosophical basis to “refudiate” progressive philosophy. They are figuring it out.
The Tea Party and the right are finally calling them on their regressive philosophy and using their [the left] own methods and they don’t like the possibility of losing their grip on power in this country.
They don’t call us Tea Baggers for no reason. That bad taste the left has in it’s collective mouth is from the sweat off our b…..
Damn straight I am a Tea Bagger, but the left is the Tea Baggee. We hope you enjoy the dip. Since your ideas don’t really have any rational basis, we don’t really have to worry too much about intellectual “teeth”.
BIL,
I was going to respond to your latest comment, but you deviated so far from the current topic of discussion that I can’t possibly hope to adequately respond.
If you want civility in political discourse; why not start it here? If you don’t like what (insert list of names) is saying; don’t listen to them, or don’t read what they have to say. That is your suggested remedy, isn’t it? (i.e. “If you don’t like my responses to him? Don’t read them.”)
My mother used to say “Charity begins at home”. She was right. I like to think she would say the same about civility. Respect and civility go hand in hand.
lol
Although Mitch “I’m A Contrarian Obstructionist” O’Connell SB McConnell.
Sorry! Sleepy is my only excuse.
Mike S.,
Thank you, kind sir.
One lives to be of service.
I’d again jump into this fray but it would only add to the ganging up on poor BBB. He is quite competent in obfuscation, but really he is on the end of a losing proposition. To defend the excesses of Republican partisans and Fox hacks by straining to find equivalent behavior on the Left just doesn’t cut it, because there exists no equivalency. Alan Grayson’s hyperbole does not rise to the level of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, McConnell and a host of minor congresspeople. This is a statement of reality and fact, not partisan blindness. BBB you’re good, but in the end your rhetorical gyrations simply aren’t persuasive.
Buddha,
your 12:03 am post was a bravura performance in that you expressed clarity and truth to the many aspects of US politics today.
Tuscon shooting survivor blames Palin, Beck, Angle and others.http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/14/tucson_shooting_survivor_it_looks_like
Buddha,
Fair enough. I think you can be polite out of courtesy or you can be polite out of respect (or both).
Slarti,
No. Courtesy is simply politeness. Politeness has nothing to do with respect.
“The bottom line is this: there is no true left and very little conventional traditional right in Washington.” (Buddha)
…. Absolutely True
“But I digress.
Or do I?” (Buddha) … pure Buddha 🙂