It is beginning to seem like “blood libel” has become the contemporary term of art. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) took the floor last night to compare the Republicans to Nazi propagandist Goebbels and their arguments to “blood libel.” Since Sarah Palin was just skewered over the use of the term, it will be interesting to see the reaction to this reference occurring just days later over national health.
Cohen stated “They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing, blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing,”
Cohen also noted:
“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover.”
Moving from the Holocaust to health care is a bit too much of a jump for many people. We have repeatedly seen objections to the use of Nazi references by politicians.
Here Cohen wanted to refer to the tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes accepted as the truth. He could have done that without the Nazi reference. The “blood libel” reference was just recently denounced by the the Anti-Defamation League in relation to Palin. One would think that they would have to do the same with Cohen for consistency purposes.
In the meantime, CNN has taken a commentator to task on the air for simply using the term “crosshairs.”
I am not sure that the mere reference to crosshairs deserves such a mea culpa on the air.
What do you think?
Source: MSNBC
Jonathan Turley
Lottakatz:
You wrote:
“What people seem to overlook (or not care about) when it comes to the position Santorum and his ilk advocates is that to raise the fetus to legal primacy in the relationship between fetus’ and women, you have to disregard the legal primacy of the women. ”
Naturally this is just your opinion. It’s a guess. No one is calling for “fetal primacy” either. You created that out of thing air. People are only calling for some measure of equality. Perhaps that’s the part that trips you up?
If one has the kid, does it take anything away from the mother if ten minutes later the kid has SOME rights at all? How does that hurt mother? No rational person believes it does. Omygosh, little people have some rights!!!! (fainting)
No, no, it is sensible.
So mom doesn’t get to fling the kid at the wall in the maternity ward. Big deal. This is not a limit of her liberty. Are the laws that prevent her from doing that giving the child primacy over the mom? No, they are protecting each equally.
Just what are you blathering about anyway?
Are you worried the fetus will hire a lawyer and sue mommy for eating a Snickers bar? But aren’t there already laws that protect the fetus? Laws like alcohol warning labels and etc? Do mothers think that is unfair for the state to protect the baby she WANTS? I guess you just don’t want laws protecting babies the mothers don’t want.
I’m not sure what you are worried about. In the world of the lefty, nature is supposed to be awesome. I guess when nature takes its course and creates a human fetus a lefty doesn’t want, suddenly nature is bad and must be flushed down the drain.
Now, I’m thinking that lefty fetuses really ought to be flushed just in case the stupidity of the parents is genetic; but as tempting as that seems, I cannot fault the little one for that and have to stand in favor of the tiny creature’s life.
I don’t get you people. You act like fetuses are organizing to grab all kinds of rights (after millions of years of evolution suddenly they are revolting!!!)
You are hilarious.
Look, I understand this. The whole idea of leftists having sex and producing offspring IS indeed a scary thing. And from what I’ve seem of leftist men (and especially lefty women) I can sympathize with their mutual need to get rid of something they might have produced together.
I mean YUCK! It’s freakin’ disgusting.
But why pick on the poor little innocent thing who didn’t ask to be a part of leftist rutting season?
With respect, Mr. Turley, any comparison between Cohen’s use of the term “blood libel” and Palin’s use of it must focus on accuracy and context.
Palin suggested that criticism of violent rhetoric in the modern political arena is equivalent to the historic blood libel. The comparison is not legitimate, because modern political commentators are not a religious minority subjected, across many centuries of European history, to violent and deadly persecution based on utterly false claims.
Cohen suggested that the modern political tactic of mendaciously repeating a lie until it is widely accepted as truth is equivalent to the historic repetition of the blood libel until it was widely accepted as truth. The comparison is hyperbolic, because nobody is systematically murdering proponents of health care and their families and calling it appropriate justice – unlike what frequently happened to Jews accused of this imaginary crime.
The difference, then, is between suggesting an illegitimate equivalence and hyperbole, both using a bloody and painful history for the purpose. Which is further from the truth? Consider: With regard to Palin, the truth is that many modern political commentators have in fact been using violent rhetoric, and criticizing them for it should be part of the normal political process; the blood libel, on the other hand, is simply false. With regard to Cohen, the truth is that opponents of health care have been mendaciously repeating lies, and they should be called out for it; but the blood libel is in fact a mendaciously repeated lie that should be criticized.
Ergo, Palin is at best a blithering idiot who deserves the withering scorn she’s received over her use of the term in a context of false equivalence, while Cohen is a politician whose hyperbolic use of the term is founded on an actual similarity (namely, the repetition of lies).
It’s important to stop, think, and analyze these things, not just react to them. Just reacting is how we’ve gotten to where we are now.
puzzling,
I think if you get the old calculator out, the vitriol from the Right has always surpassed the occasional nutjob on the Left. Hell, Rush Limbaugh reaches more people every day than all of the Right commentators combined and he is a fountain of hate speech.
Lottakatz and shano, you are both correct about Santorum. He is a dangerous Religious zealot who would make the Bible the new law of the land if he had the chance.
Rafflaw asks “After all of the publicity of the blood libell comment, why allow the Right to claim both sides are doing it.”
Because it has never been just the right! You and many others are caught up in a furious but false partisan debate.
Cohen:
Gyges
You are correct in that knowledge in all fields has expanded exponentially. That leads to more and more specializing just to keep up. I’m not talking about students in general, but about politicians; and the political field is limited, for the most part, to only a portion of all that knowledge although in our much more complex world some knowledge of other disciplines are increasingly important to proper governance.
I’m really looking at the more rigorous educational discipline of the past. The fact that more information is available in fields that a governor should be concerned with, means the education of potential governors should be at least as rigorous and probably more so. Maybe it is, but it doesn’t show in their performance as far as I can see. The seeming confusion about understanding the Constitution and it’s authority is just one case in point. (Don’t worry, I’m not going to run for office.) 🙂 Yes, thank goodness!
If nothing else, certainly potential governors should be adequately exposed to history and political movements up to the present day. How else shall they know how to govern?
I wasn’t aware that the writings of Latin historians Tacitus and Livy and the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides were in the Bible, though I’ll admit to not being a biblical scholar. 😉
Buckeye,
I’m not buying that most of the new knowledge to teach has been in scientific fields. Don’t forget there’s also 200-300 more years worth of literature, history, and art to study, not to mention a much broader definition of what literature, history, and art are worth studying.
They used the Bible as a history book back then. Just think about that for a second.
Look, I’m not saying that our education isn’t sorely lacking in some areas. I’m just saying that you’re only looking to the good of the past and comparing it to the bad of the present.
Senator Cohen was just on the Ed Schultz show and comes across as a real down to earth congressman who realizes that he got caught up in the moment and said something which he says he should not have.and he also says that by him being Jewish he understands why there may be some angst.
Rremember the exchange Cheney had with Senator Lehay ?
Just showing contrast of outrage.
shano, Right.
The “right to life” groups are terrorists.
they have killed a number of people and go around setting off bombs.
Santorum pals around with terrorists.
Just sayin’
Santorum is an idiot.
What people seem to overlook (or not care about) when it comes to the position Santorum and his ilk advocates is that to raise the fetus to legal primacy in the relationship between fetus’ and women, you have to disregard the legal primacy of the women. This is the absolute zero-sum equation. Of course, the legal and personal value of women, and their right to exercise their own personhood and legal rights, is something anathema to fundie philosophy so it’s not a stretch.
Jesus’ General has a posting up that illustrates this point perfectly. Follow the link in the article for the original column:
“Zsuzsanna’s Advice for the Ladies
Mrs. Pastor Steven L. “Zsuzsanna” Anderson answers the question, “Should a wife divorce an abusive husband:” ”
(Last paragraph of Zuzanna’s answer)
“The only Biblical recourse for a horrible marriage, or any marriage for that matter, is death. If your husband is an abusive, mean, hateful, fill-in-the-blank jerk in spite of you doing your best as a wife, God can kill him whenever He wants to. If he is still alive, God must want you to still be married to him. A wife could pray and fast for her husband/marriage, and for the kids to turn out right in spite of marital problems. If nothing else, it will be a great lesson for the kids, who hopefully will grow up and make wiser and more careful choices regarding their future spouse, rather than learning that marriage can be dissolved at a whim.”
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/20/937571/-Heres-the-Glenn-Beck-Shoot-them-in-the-head!-video
He is not backing down, either:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/dem_rep_no_apology_for_saying.html
eniobob
To each his own. S
antorum made a great point and there was no making it without talking about race (because that is what slavery in America was all about).
But I’m delighted if Santorum is going to use this strategy against Obama, because it is hypocritical for a Christian to be a member of the Democratic Party.
I’d like to see Obama have to deal with that line of attack (figuratively, of course!) because Obama cannot defend it by his faith. He he surely isn’t even smart enough to defend it intellectually.
Whether Santorum is smart enough to make the right arguments is questionable. He is also a neocon. And I cannot abide them. They too are hypocritical about protecting innocent life.
Tootie:
“I take it you just wanted to show us what kooks they are over there. ”
No I wanted to show what a kook Santorum was.As far as the Huffington Post in general,at times they have some credible stories and at times they don’t.Just like any other publication.
rafflaw:
I saw the video. I stand by my previous statement.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/bachmann-repeal-the-senate-to-undermine-obamacare—-the-crown-jewel-of-socialism.php
Tootie,
did you watch the Santorum video? It sure sounds like you are just making up an excuse for this ex-Senator’s stupid statement about Obama. He asks if the fetus is a person and Obama gave him the answer that the Supreme Court agreed on, NO. It is Santorum and you who are incorrect here. He is suggesting that a Black man should not be making that decision because he was once considered chattel. Luckily for Obama and America, the law came to its senses on slavery. Too bad the Supreme Court doesn’t back up the crap that Santorum is spewing. He is trying to push his religous beliefs on the country as he was when he was a Senator. This guy win an election in Pennsylvania so he might want to save his money running for President. Isn’t he the human/animal sex guy? Isn’t he the one who wanted to take out evolution from text books and replace it with Scientific Design or as I call it, fiction? He is a religous zealot who doesn’t belong in public service.
Rep. Cohen was diagnosed with polio when he was five. Maybe he could not take hearing how people with pre-existing conditions should be denied health care. I don’t know that he is stupid either. He overreacted.
I think he is a little ginger but not nuts….maybe an excuse for a cashew….
Eniobob:
You didn’t expect a headline from HuffPo to be accurate, did you?
Of course you didn’t since you have some semblance of rational thinking and don’t want to be caught dead or alive agreeing with the imbeciles that troll around HuffPo or write for it. I take it you just wanted to show us what kooks they are over there.
And for that I heartily applaud you.
If anything Santorum invoked SLAVERY not race. One can talk about race and not be a racist. But only a race bater/monger could conclude Santorum made a racist statement (which HP never said he did). It is possible that HuffPo is looking to plant seeds of evil intent by Santorum (get out!) among its imbecilic readers who love to hate the right.
If one has to kowtow to tamping down the rhetoric these days because leaders on their side made a knee-jerking decision to do so, then what better way for the leftist press to continue its flame-throwing than to draw conclusions in the headlines of their articles which don’t reflect what really happened (even as it is written in the text of the article). HuffPo probably does this sort of thing because readers are assumed to be easily manipulated and dumb. Notice the post below yours, it talks about dumb people. Or, rather, not so smart people.
Anyway, Santorum attempted to make an excellent point, to wit, that anyone (i.e. Obama) sensitive to how (black) slaves in America were considered subhuman or not human might want to reconsider thinking the same thing about the unborn. Which apparently Obama does believe as he belongs to the Democratic Party.
Clever boy, Santorum has found Obama’s Achilles Heel.
May he go after it with relish.
And chili peppers.