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
You betcha!
Oh I know, the left has its own ‘activist’ groups but they mainly seem to be radicals who target various issues like the World Bank, environmental issues (when was the last time Earth First! did any vandalism?) or human rights issues.
Thne GOP likes to say they were ‘targeted’ at the Republican convention in 2008, but with Amy Goodman getting arrested there, and the group who was invaded having absolutely NO plan to cause mischief. The police were way out of line, as they usually are when it comes to left wing organization the past decade or so..
I have a hard time thinking of any funerals that have been held because of radial left wing groups in the past 20 years.
What we have now are hate groups who have a leader, Sarah Palin, and they have their own TV station in order to promote this
Cheerleader of Violence ™.
@Slart: And I will, just as you throw around charges you never can prove claiming I have bad logic (which you cannot show) or claiming that I use straw men (which I do not) or that I have an un-nuanced analysis or black-and-white thinking (which I have shown time and again I do not).
It is very typical of you, to accuse me of the crimes you commit.
@rafflaw: That’s fine. Thank you.
I don’t believe the Democrats in the Senate and Congress could get elected if they were anywhere near as helpless in negotiations as they appear to be. I don’t think somebody can run a successful campaign and be that much of a wilting violet.
So I do not think they are helpless, I think they pretend to be helpless. I do not think they are bad negotiators, I think they pretend to be because that is a useful fiction. I do not think they are principled; I think they pretend to be right up until there is some risk they will keep their promise (remember all those Democrats that promised they wouldn’t vote for a health care bill without a public option, right up until they did?)
They are liars. That is the Occam’s Razor conclusion. Either somehow, mysteriously, complete idiots and incompetents manage to get themselves elected and re-elected for term after term, or they are completely competent and pretty good liars.
There is a reason the Daily Show can put up every month some clip show of a politician (like McCain, or Harry Reid) making exactly opposite claims time after time after time. They lie. You cannot trust them, they say whatever is politically expedient at the time.
I am surprised I have to explain this, but the logical next step, if you cannot trust a single thing a politician says, is to look at what the politician does. And what they do (with the exception of a few) is pass laws that ultimately benefit business and the wealthy.
IMO, the reason it looks like Republicans have been ruling from the minority is that Republicans are the openly pro-business pro-wealthy pro-war party, but enough Democrats are (albeit less openly) pro-business, pro-wealthy, pro-war that this is actually the majority faction in both the House and the Senate. And the White House.
Republicans don’t rule from the minority; the big-money faction owns all three houses and rules from the majority, and then the Republicans get the credit.
There is no doubt about some things.
Tony,
I care about responding to your comments, not about what you think – there’s a difference. Also, I have in the past admitted to mistakes here – I just don’t think that any of my positions in our exchanges were wrong. You can throw around your charges of me being a ‘false debater’, your naive un-nuanced analysis, and your army of straw men all you want – I’ll let people decide for themselves which one of us is more credible…
Tony C.,
I stand corrected on your corruption vs. drumming up violence issue. I did mix them up.
However, I will have to disagree with your statement that both sides are “just as corrupt”.
@Slart: Obviously you care about what I think, you cannot help yourself except to respond to everything I say, no matter what. Or perhaps it is just that little superiority complex you have, thinking that you have some responsibility to defend the poor posters that cannot defend or speak for themselves.
What I have demonstrated before on this site is that I can admit when I am wrong, and you cannot. What I have demonstrated before on this site is that you are a false debater and are uninterested in logical debate, just your emotional pronouncements on other people’s logic. Your history on this site testifies to that truth, poor Slart.
Tony,
I don’t really care about what you think, but your history here testifies to the truth of the first part and we will see what happens regarding the last part…
@rafflaw: I didn’t SAY THAT, I said both sides are just as CORRUPT.
@Slart: That is nothing but your opinion and I dismiss it.
shano,
You have to love Alan Grayson’s candor. Well done.
Tony C., you can keep believing that both sides are drumming up violence or you can believe the facts.
@shano: Apparently you don’t get the point, because the point isn’t about who is violent and who isn’t. AS I SAID, the poor and dumb resort to violence faster. Palin and Beck and the other right wing sociopaths, including religious leaders, are exploiting their (justifiable) anger for $$$, and manipulating them by pointing at false targets — Democrats, liberals, and quite reasonable public works and services as the “culprits.”
The vast majority of Democrats in Congress do not stand up to Republicans because they are just as deep in the pockets of corporations as the Republicans are. The Democrats are lying to us, just like the Republicans. It is just the lies Democrats want to hear!
I did not say, and do not believe, the violence is equal on both sides. What I said, and what I believe, is that the corruption is equal on both sides.
I cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter and haven’t voted for anything but Democrats (and an occasional libertarian Judge or D.A.) since then. I’ve donated over ten thousand dollars to various Democrats in my life. Obviously I think there is a difference; but I can think there is a difference and still think they are corrupt as hell.
Tony,
You’ve repeatedly shown that you are unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between light gray and charcoal – the effects of handing Rep. Issa subpoena power alone are likely to be significant… and bad.
I remember when Bill Buckley essentially kicked all those hate groups out of the GOP simply by never giving them any air time.!
Now Palin has invited them back in, with the help of John McCain.
Slartibartfast is right, too. Because the Democratic party, for all its faults is not firing up a base consisting of hooligans, hate groups, neo nazis, anarchists, white supremacists, et al.
These people are violent and have a violent history.
Oklahoma City has a huge memorial to their deeds.
@Slart: Oh I think there is a difference; it is just the difference between sneak thieves and muggers, or white collar criminals and the Mafia.
Show me any members of the GOP who are having to deal with this sort of terrorism:
Gabby Was Right, Palin Is Wrong
by Alan Grayson on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 12:20pm
When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin, smiling at me.
“Oh, God,” I said to myself, “what has she done now?”
The headline was “Palin Defends ‘Blood Libel’”. That’s interesting, I thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?
Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin’s disjointed remarks on Sean Hannity’s show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well. Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was shattered. This is what Gabby said:
“You know, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action.”
And here is Palin’s blithe response, on Hannity’s show: “That map wasn’t an original graphic.”
What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?
Even before I heard earlier Palin’s whining about “misguided finger-pointing” and “irresponsible statements from people who are apportioning blame,” I thought about this:
Palin came to my district, and told her people to “take me out.”
Palin told people again and again, “don’t retreat, reload.”
The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received a telephone death threat intended for me.
A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.
We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a file.
And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying “you better get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked soon.”
Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, “there are consequences.”
Of course, I wasn’t the only target of these threats.
Gabby’s tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors to fire an automatic weapon.
Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s opponent conducted target practice on her initials.
Democrat Ron Klein’s opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein was “afraid to leave his house.”
Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.
Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother’s house was cut.
Democrat Emanuel Cleaver – a minister – was spat on.
Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.
I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. “There are consequences.”
And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor’s office was quickly exposed as a hoax.
As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: “We can’t stand for this.” We have to stand against it.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
Tony,
You’re delusional if you think that there isn’t a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHi6_l1XzA&feature=related
Neo Nazis protest immigration in Arizona.