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
Buddha,
“No. What you did was mistake a tactic for logic. Oh, and demonstrated that you really do not understand the nature of propaganda or how to combat it.”
No, what I did was state that using informal fallacies of logic is a poor tactical choice for an argument.
And by what measure do you equate replacing your opponent’s propaganda with your own a success when your propaganda is just as bereft of truth as your opponent’s?
And here I was thinking we agreed to disagree…
Bob,
“I simply stated that using faulty logic to refute or persecute the right is just as wrong as the right using faulty logic (e.g. Limbaugh speak) to refute/persecute the left.”
No. What you did was mistake a tactic for logic. Oh, and demonstrated that you really do not understand the nature of propaganda or how to combat it.
Bob Esq.:
“However, one cannot ignore how the self-interests of the centrist Right and centrist Left are capable of coming to a mutually beneficial agreement every now and then.”
I have long thought that welfare and capitalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the economic engine of capitalism could be let lose there would be more than enough money to help the poor among us.
Part of the problem is that most people on the left don’t think a low tax rate and reduced regulation are good. And most people on the right don’t think welfare is good. And both the right and the left like to spend other people’s money.
I don’t want a socialist America, even though we are more socialist than capitalist currently. The problem as I see it is that the hard left wants the entire enchilada-a workers paradise. And the hard right wants a totally free market.
I think, however, the hard right is more willing to compromise than the hard left. I imagine my counterpart on the hard left feels the same way, i.e. the left is more willing to compromise.
Bob,
A good friend of mine would argue that you get a bigger sense of accomplishment from beating your opponent with their best players on the field (I can see it both ways).
As for the other thing, this argument is getting kind of abstruse, so I’m going to wander off… Look! Something shiny…
I will bet that stochastic terrorism increases in the US because of Citizens United.
any takers?
Because Loughner sounds just like Glenn Beck to me.
When Beck can openly tell viewers to shoot people in the head and nothing is done about it, that can only be a bad thing for any society in any nation.
Coming to your town sooner or later.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/violence-directed-liberal-and-govern
Kevin,
I haven’t really made an analogy. I simply stated that using faulty logic to refute or persecute the right is just as wrong as the right using faulty logic (e.g. Limbaugh speak) to refute/persecute the left.
Ergo no faulty analogy.
Per the Steelers; I get the sense that they’re not as hungry for the win as the Jets. Regardless, I’d love to see Troy and Ben on the sidelines on Sunday.
Chan L.,
Excellent points and thanks for the link to the Krugman essay.
I’d just add that there comes a time when a party finds itself in need of tossing a few of its members under the bus so as to further its interests.
Per the right and left ever joining in a hands across America exercise; I agree. However, one cannot ignore how the self-interests of the centrist Right and centrist Left are capable of coming to a mutually beneficial agreement every now and then.
Bob and Chan,
The rhetoric enables ALL violence, not just violence from people with the same ideological position (although I would guess that incitement works better when the ideologies agree).
Bob,
I believe that you’re making a false equivalence of the tactics I’m suggesting vs. the tactics of the right (saying that there is strong correlation along with evidence of causation in some cases is a far cry from calling your opponent’s speech regarding yourself ‘blood libel’).
As for the Jets I agree that their best bet is to get pressure on Roethlisberger (he can’t win the game from his back – that’s the kind of thing you know when you’re a Lion’s fan ;-)) and I wouldn’t want to face the Jet’s rush given the current state of the Steeler’s line, but Big Ben is capable of having a big day even in those conditions as is Mendenhall – we’ll see if they can step up on Sunday.
Bob Esq.:
“Strategically speaking though, the correct play for the right is to move away from the speakers of such rhetoric, i.e. let them twist in the wind, while moving back towards a platform of civility.”
The only problem I see is that if the assertions were not met with objection, people would believe the dogma.
If I accused you of some heinous crime in a national forum, wouldn’t you want to vociferously refute my accusation? And wouldn’t you think I was crazy or venal for making such a false statement?
I would not consider someone making a false statement against me for political reasons a good person and so I would not want to mend any fences or enter into a rapprochement with them. I would defend myself vigorously, loudly and often with the facts.
The left and the right will never be able to come together, we have 2 ways of looking at the world Paul Krugman stated it in his January 14th essay. I have posted the link and the essential idea:
“One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulkrugman
One is the morality of altruism, the other is the morality of the individual. The 2 are not compatible. A house divided cannot stand against itself.
To paraphrase Lincoln:
“”A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half welfare and half capitalist. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
You know which way I hope it goes.
Chan L.: “I was trying to say that just because a person holds a political idea does not mean that his entire bent can be determined from that one particular idea.”
No argument here.
Chan L.: “Many Christians are left wing but are against abortion. People always think the right is against abortion. So that was my point. Loughner may have one or 2 right wing beliefs but that did not necessarily cause his actions. He is a lunatic, nothing more.”
I’ve yet to see any evidence connecting Loughner’s actions to the right wing rhetoric being blamed.
Strategically speaking though, the correct play for the right is to move away from the speakers of such rhetoric, i.e. let them twist in the wind, while moving back towards a platform of civility.
Kevin,
You can persecute whenever you want; e.g. with mere suspicion. Every other reason proffered for said persecution has engaged false cause fallacies; e.g. post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Don’t get me wrong; the (rabid) right wing’s got it comin’ and I salute those who take them to task. But what’s the point of attacking a Rush Limbaugh by using Rush Limbaugh like tactics?
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Mr-Limbaugh-Dittoheads-Fallacious/dp/0812692942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295640808&sr=8-1
And this should be a GREAT weekend for football. Here’s hoping the Jets exploit the weak offensive line of the Steelers; and sack the living daylights out of Roethlisberger.
Bob,
That is sad about the Wiz – still, Joe was years ahead of Michael Jordan… Let’s hope for a Jets v. Bears Superbowl (since I accepted the professor’s gracious offer to become a temporary Bears fan… All aboard the bandwagon! ;-)).
As to the other, I am perfectly aware that correlation is not causality, but Swarthmore mom gave evidence of a causal linkage that is sufficient (keep in mind that since I’ve never been suggesting legislation – persecution not prosecution – I’m only asserting that this link is strong enough, in my opinion, to justify the response that I’m suggesting, not that it meets any particular legal standard).
Bob Esq:
I was trying to say that just because a person holds a political idea does not mean that his entire bent can be determined from that one particular idea.
Many Christians are left wing but are against abortion. People always think the right is against abortion.
So that was my point. Loughner may have one or 2 right wing beliefs but that did not necessarily cause his actions.
He is a lunatic, nothing more.
Bob,
“Call me silly, but I tend to believe that one should be at least ‘a tipping of the scales’ about what one speaks before opening his mouth.”
Call me silly, but the general level of violent rhetoric from the right tipped the scales before I spoke against it.
If you don’t approve?
Life is just chock full of lil’ disagreements.
Slarti: “As for the important stuff: Do you live in New York? If so, do they still have the ‘Nobody beats the Wiz’ ads with Joe Namath? It’s been almost 2 decades since I lived in Manhattan, but I always found it oddly comforting that Broadway Joe was still a major endorser in the New York market…”
Yes, I remember those and the ads that followed which had Boomer and Joe. Sadly the Wiz closed its doors in 2006.
Slarti: “As the level of violent rhetoric in civic discourse increases so does the probability of an unstable person (regardless of ideology or lack thereof) committing or attempting to commit a violent act (it also has other negative effects worth fighting). What more of a connection is necessary before we should attempt to marginalize violent hate speech in our politics today?”
Pick any informal fallacy concerning causality Kevin.
Chan L.,
I may know the basics of paper v. gold, but I wasn’t following your argument with Buddha.
Buddha: “How many times do I have to say this isn’t a court case before it sinks in? I’ve said it time and again and you keep coming back with legal standards of proof like preponderance of the evidence.”
Call me silly, but I tend to believe that one should be at least ‘a tipping of the scales’ about what one speaks before opening his mouth.
Buddha: “As to the Secret Service, your blind deference to authority (?)”
Yeah, that’s it.
Great catch shano! That Beck has been inciting the crazy Right for years now.
Glenn Beck said it first: