Sarah Palin Is The Real Victim
As many of you have already known, Sarah Palin released a video today about the Tucson shootings. Instead of taking the opportunity to exhibit leadership, she made herself the victim and threw red meat to her base.
Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
The excerpt everyone is talking about refers to “blood libel:”
Second, her core accusation on the video, the one that was clearly selected with an intent to drive headlines, not only accuses critics of “blood libel,” but actually accuses them of expressing concern and outrage about the shooting in bad faith, as if they are doing so in an effort to do nothing more than damage her politically:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. 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.
Words can’t express how vile this paragraph is. First of all, I’m not sure if Sarah Palin knows what “blood libel” means.
Blood libel is a term that usually refers to an ancient falsehood that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. For hundreds of years, particularly during the Middle Ages, it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews in the street and their expulsion from entire countries. “Blood libel” is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.
Did Palin know or care how offensive it is to use that term in reference to the attempted assassination of a Jewish Congresswoman? It’s beyond disgusting. Her message is also striking in its incoherence. In one paragraph she says that criticizing Sarah Palin will cause violence but her earlier message was that Loughner was a deranged loner who wasn’t affected by political speech. It’s also incredibly tone deaf to reference dueling with regards to a mass shooting.
Sarah Palin thinks we should use this opportunity to reflect on how we’ve hurt Sarah Palin. But the criticism is about more than Sarah Palin. Palin is a convenient target because she is one of the biggest names that is indulging in rightwing militaristic paranoid speech.
Harold Meyerson adds something really important today to the broader discussion on the effect of political speech and puts his finger on what I think a lot of people were having trouble articulating. It’s not really the martial metaphors that are the issue it’s the culture of paranoia being stoked by the right and most of it is aimed at the government and government officials.
The primary problem with the political discourse of the right in today’s America isn’t that it incites violence per se. It’s that it implants and reinforces paranoid fears about the government and conservatism’s domestic adversaries.
Much of the culture and thinking of the American right – the mainstream as well as the fringe – has descended into paranoid suppositions about the government, the Democrats and the president. This is not to say that the left wing doesn’t have a paranoid fringe, too. But by every available measure, it’s the right where conspiracy theories have exploded.
…
As much of the right sees it, the government is planning to incarcerate its enemies (see Beck and Erickson, above), socialize the economy and take away everyone’s guns. At the fringe, we have figures like Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, who told a rally in Washington last April that, “We’re in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it. They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists.”
But the imputation of lurking totalitarianism, alien ideologies, and subversion of liberties to liberals and moderates has become the default rhetoric of the right. Never mind that Obama is a Marxist, a Kenyan and an advocate of sharia law. Consider the plight of poor Fred Upton, the Republican congressman just installed as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, over considerable right-wing opposition. According to Beck, Upton is “all socialist,” while Rush Limbaugh calls him the personification of “nannyism” and “statism.” Upton’s crime is that he supports more energy-efficient light bulbs. How that puts him in a league with Marx, Engels and Nanny McPhee, I will leave to subtler minds.
I think you’ll recognize a lot of this speech from people like Palin and Christine O’Donnell. We’ve heard about the danger that Michelle Obama will steal our cupcakes and that Congress will restrict our lightbulbs. Modest regulatory proposals are met with extreme vitriol from the right, even things they once supported (like cap & trade).
How do we take our political discourse away from the abyss? Perhaps I’m longing for days that have never been but this is as bad as I’ve seen in my lifetime. The events of the last few days have shown that people aren’t ready to face this yet. I just hope things don’t get worse before they get better.
Tags: Blood Libel, Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin
Two comments, from TPM and Andrew Sullivan, respectively, are of note:
and
Sarah Palin is perhaps the most contemptible person ever to grace our politics. Rather than take responsibility for words or pictures she has used in the past that could be described as contributing to a violent political climate, and apologizing for whatever part she played in making our national discourse so poisonous, and promising to do her part to make our debates, while passionate, less threatening and vile; she does the opposite.
She has quite clearly stated that criticism of conservative rhetoric will result in violence.
This is a threat. Because she is implying, through the word “manufacture,” that any criticism is illegitimate and/or false, and that such criticism will incite violence. And who will be incited? Liberals and Democrats? Or her supporters? Ask yourself who will be more upset by criticism of dear Sarah, especially when Sarah says the criticism is “manufactured.”
Not convinced?
So if we dare criticize your violent rhetoric and say it incites violence, there will be no peace, or in other words, there will be violence?
Wow.
As with her gall, her logic is likewise, well, galling. She says that criminal acts stand on their own, unaffected by the environment. If that is true, then why the added threat to journalists and pundits whose criticism of her could incite violence? If violence cannot be incited, then why warn that violence will be incited?
Finally, this comment from Sullivans:
Except her supporters will rescue her from that quicksand and support her like never before, now that she has proclaimed herself the true victim in this.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2012 Republican nominee.
Oh – I have a better one for ya:
from todays TNJ:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110111/NEWS/101110351/Has-talk-become-more-than-words-
“Murphy said he figured some might use the Tucson tragedy to tarnish the tea party movement. He said his group stresses civility, even though it is sometimes antagonized by liberals at rallies, he said.”
REALLY – when did “liberals” antagonize his 9/12ers and at what rallies – did I miss an opportunity? Darn it~!!
OH!! maybe it was when Alex Garcia appeared on the front page of TNJ holding a rifle with a scope, not even legal for hunting or other use in Delaware?
while he discussed the 9/12 position on “illegal” immigrants?
HMMMM – I don’t remeber any “liberals” appearing on the front page of TNJ holding weapons, or espousing roundups of Hispanics in Georgetown or threatening a “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre” either, as we all saw yesterday
Is there a functioning brain cell amongst the lot of them?
I am beginning to seriously really doubt it
DD,
Do you really think Palin will be the 2012 nominee.
I really do. In a crowded field, which it will be in the early going, she has a healthy base of support. The question is, will there be time for one anti-Palin candidate that can win some of her supporters over, while getting the establishment vote, to emerge. It won’t be Romney. The base hates him. It might be Huckabee, but I don’t know.
I’m still on the fence with her being the nominee, but… if she comes out of this video nonsense unscathed and stronger, I’d say the nomination could very well be her’s.
And why not? The GOP shows no sign of taking a step towards moderate behavior – they won’t even stop walking (toward the right). They just keep on marching to crazy town. Sarah won’t have to come to them. They’ll come to her. Scary, isn’t it?
Sarah is the victim. She is the victim of constant liberal attacks and the tragedy in Tuscon is no different. The liberal nut who shot these people is the guilty party, not the future President.
Bwhahahahahaha! Now, that was funny.
And Curley is repeating the lie that “Palin’s target map actually used compass icons instead of gun sights.” And then he goes on to say “Democrats have used bull’s eyes in their own campaign efforts.”
He just doesn’t have a clue.
There was the one guy from moveon that bit off that 62 year old man’s finger…
Well today Curley has been a gay bashing anti semite, pretty normal for him:)
YO
John Dickinson, I called Del Psych and reported that you have not taken your meds, and some how got your hands on a computer after hours. The orderlies are on their way. Time to go to bed. Night
“Sarah is the victim. She is the victim of constant liberal attacks and the tragedy in Tuscon is no different.”
Ironically, this language mirrors the paranoid delusions of the shooter. You might want to have yourself checked for other signs of mental illness.
UI: The criticism of this video is widespread. I think her support is about to contract sharply, to just the core of craziness.
As some brought up potential Republican 2012 presidential nominees, I must show my support for….
Gary Johnson 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah Geezer. It was hard to find people defending the Palin video except for her hardcore fans. I just wonder who is advising her. She was quiet for 4 days (except issuing condolences through FB) and she came out with THIS?!? Who in their right mind thinks it’s a good idea to talk about how she was wronged. Even people who thought the criticism of Palin was unfair were scratching their heads.
You must have posted a different video than you discussed. It is really good/ near perfection. I guess that is why ypu mut attack it. It makes her critics look foolish or worse.
david, just quit.
Agreed, Ben.
It was a dreadful video, David, and people across the political spectrum agree. Defending it makes you look foolish or worse.
How can David look anymore foolish than he already is? He exhibits this foolishness on a daily basis, both here and on his own blog.
I have to wonder… if David truly believes Palin’s video was “good/ near perfection,” then why didn’t he post it on his blog?
And I’m not being snarky.
Because his humble blog is not worthy of HER grandeur and HER perfect word. He dare not even gaze upon her flawless face lest he be shamed at his own in-perfect conservatism.
all praise be to $t $arah!
In addition to the violent rhetoric, the Republucans have a core problem with simply being honest. Take David’s reaction to the Palin video and the general Republican reaction to the Presidents speech. Everything is about scoring political points with them, so it is impossible to have a normal, honest conversation about anything.
Like I said, I admire Obama for his convictions, but I think he is misguided if he thinks Republicans will ever act in good faith to help solve the country’s problems.
I’m interested in why RD thinks the Palin video is so good as well. I would think Palin supporters would think that the video was too long. IMHO, this is a great example of why editors make so much money. I’m not going to watch it again, but it probably could have stopped at the 1:30 mark.
I think Palin horribly miscalculated. Everyone is comparing the two speeches, and she’s losing the comparison. Who in their right mind thought releasing this speech yesterday was a good idea?
My guess is that she’s surrounded herself with yes-men/women, and that anyone playing devil’s advocate is shown the door.
That’s the only possible excuse for the timing and the content. Everyone surrounding her thought releasing this speech at this time was simply brilliant.
Pandora,
Just look at who shes consults with: Beck and Hannity. In one respect they are irrational people with ideology that does give any room for compromise.
My guess is that she does not really have anyone close in her circle that thinks beyond the ideology and marketing the message.
I would bet that the timing was based more on the fact that the spin was not gaining any traction. Beck and the others making it worse, and of course the press was not backing off of her. They were probably hoping it would fade out after a day.
Yes I believe it is that shallow and self centered.
“Everything is about scoring political points with them, so it is impossible to have a normal, honest conversation about anything.”
Exactly. This is why they have reacted by attacking (their tanks don’t have a reverse gear). They can’t imagine any reason liberals immediately leapt to the conclusion that a right-wing gun nut was to blame other than to score political points.
The real reason, of course, is that they have convinced us they’re serious about coming armed next time. They’re complaining about their own successful branding.