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
All I can say is that advertising works or people would not be paid millions of dollars to put together words and images to influence the behavior of people.
Psychologists know it works. Images, music and words have a powerful impact on humans. They can create a tone in society and change a culture.
I wrote to John McCain about this target map when it came out last March. When he refused to denounce this, I knew the hate groups here had gained tremendous power.
Elizabeth comes out on the View to denounce this poster:
People should realize Arizona is the hot bed for white supremacist groups, the anti immigrant groups like the Minutemen (who killed a child and her father in Arizona) the radical right to life groups (who have some terrorism in their record by murdering doctors)the KKK and neo nazis.
All these hate groups love Sarah Palin.
She is the Queen of Violence ™
Glenn Beck tied to three assassination attempts in 2010.
In addition to the regular hate speech on talk radio and Fox ‘News’, Arizona had million and millions of dollars in Citizens United anonymously sponsored television commercials.
These commercials were terrifying. The media market was flooded with them. Every time you turned on the television, months and months before the election you would be bombarded with menacing images, music and words. Terrifying. These commercials would drive a normal person to paranoia and madness.
shano,
“History may not repeat, but it certainly does echo.”
Nicely said.
“I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus-living fossils- so we will never forget what these people stood for.”
Rush Limbaugh
Add these words to the billboard looming over Tucson with the gun shots advertising Rush.
We have seen the likes of Sarah Palin and the TeaParty before, in a group she identified with when she was in college the John Birch Society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_5CtFxxXfE&feature=player_embedded
History may not repeat, but it certainly does echo.
Elaine,
Wow!
Here’s a video clip from Hardball with Chris Matthews talking to David Brock of Media Matters about Glenn Beck being tied to three assassination attempts. It’s a follow-up to one of Swarthmore Mom’s earlier comments.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9ZLEEBq_s&fs=1&hl=en_US]
I am in pain just thinking about that picture!
Buddha,
Thanks, I had a hardcopy back in the day, but I’d like an electronic copy if it’s not too much trouble.
Slarti,
“(like the picture I once had of a man with his head up his ass…)”
I have that picture somewhere. If you’d like another copy, I’ll look for it and send it along.
Buddha said:
“…tactically and strategically the equivalent of hitting yourself in the nuts.”
That’s just beautiful – someone needs to photoshop a picture of President Bush doing this! (like the picture I once had of a man with his head up his ass…)
Pardon.
but tactically the equivalent of
SB
but tactically and strategically the equivalent of
Bob,
Attacking Iraq wasn’t a feint either.
Hussein wasn’t a problem for the region except for the Saudis and that’s because he ran a secular state. His aggression impulse had been pretty neatly trimmed already ala Libya. As evidence, I point to the tape recovered and broadcast of a staff meeting which took place after the Gulf War but before the invasion where a General suggested rebooting their chemical weapons programs and Saddam responded with something along the line of “that would only provoke the Americans to attack” and turned a queasy shade of green.
Iraq was a linchpin for secularism that we should have encouraged instead of attacked. Now it’s going to degenerate into tribal and religious warfare once we leave and become a lot like Afghanistan.
It wasn’t a feint to invade Iraq.
It was a full out colossal fuck up to invade Iraq.
Profitable for Bush and Halliburton, yes, but tactically the equivalent of hitting yourself in the nuts.
And I said so at the time.
Bob,
At the risk of mentioning a topic that we probably shouldn’t discuss…
Swarthmore mom’s link showed a connection between Glenn Beck and 3 assassination attempts – that’s already stronger than connection between Saddam and 9/11 (and it did not require any lies).
James M.: “Calling out problem rhetoric isn’t the same as assigning blame, even if it was motivated by the shooting.”
Calling out problem rhetoric with righteous indignation BECAUSE of the shooting is a tad dishonest in the absence of any evidence of proximate cause.
Buddha: “A feint is not a lie. It’s a tactical misdirection.
Minimal proof or no proof is required when you simply wish to draw attention to a problem that speaks for itself. Simply drawing the attention is sufficient.”
9/11 >> Saddam Hussein.
Slartibartfast,
Well said, even with the original sentence! James, I liked your comment as well. Calling out all politicians of any stripe that use vitriol is isn’t saying that the politicians are directly to blame for s tragedy like the Tucson shootings.
D’oh!
The sentence:
While you, like many on the right, use the tactic of false equivalency very well, it disingenuous.
should Be:
While you, like many on the right, use the tactic of false equivalency very well, it IS disingenuous.
BBB,
While you, like many on the right, use the tactic of false equivalency very well, it disingenuous. I’ll illustrate using a hypothetical example and some hyperbole…
Suppose we have two individuals – the first we will call Siddhartha be Chortling (really, I have no particular person in mind…). Let’s say that Mr. C was caught by a police officer driving 5 mph over the posted speed limit. Mr. C is unquestionably guilty of a crime (bad Siddhartha!). We will call the second individual Mr. H. Suppose Mr. H started a war which killed tens of millions of people during which he also arranged the genocide of around 6 million people. Mr. H is also clearly guilty of a crime. While it is technically accurate to say that Mr. H and Mr. C are both guilty of crimes, the implication that their crimes are in any way equivalent is an utter falsehood. This example is obviously more extreme that violent rhetoric on the left and the right, but the left tends to be guilty of occasional misdemeanors while the right’s M.O. is multiple felonies…
***Any resemblance of the characters in this hypothetical to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental.***
Lemur,
Just so you know, unregulated free market capitalism in a mature economy is an environment where wealth tends to stratify, not an environment where wealth creation thrives…