Sarah Palin and Blood Libel: Huh?
I heard the president last night and he's right: we all need to scale back our rhetoric and seek a more civil discourse. I'm not sure that means we should let lies and distortions go unchallenged, but I'm willing to try to find a better way to do that. I refuse, however, to allow those who adorn themselves in the flag assert that they-and only they-are the sole legitimate voice for the nation.
So, maybe you can help me out here. I'm confused. I don't get the whole "blood libel" thing.
I finally sat down and listened to Sarah Palin's video today (see it here) and I did my best to view it through the eyes of her base and I know that she phrased it in such a way as to appeal broadly to those who hate government; who believe the Constitution, like the Bible, should be read literally; and who view Democrats like Gifford as the enemy.
I don't say that last part lightly-her opening delivers compassion-not for all the victims of the shooting in Tucson-but for the "innocent victims." The qualifier "innocent" allows a listener who may equate Democrats with anti-American communists and fascists to affirm that at least some of those shot got what they deserved. Am I imagining things? I don't think so: she uses the qualifier twice. Of course, from her perspective, it is one of those situations where she can invoke plausible deniability, attack anyone who raises the question for doubting her sincerity, and all the time while winking to her political base.
I can also see that while she invokes "foundational" rights and speaks a lot about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, while never mentioned, is core to her message. And that message is clear-despite the bloodshed, gun rights are paramount.
I also find it interesting that, while she offers a very vibrant defense of First Amendment rights for herself and conservative commentators and decries efforts to curb the violent political rhetoric, she is silent here on the rights of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals in its efforts to oppose U.S. laws providing equal rights to gays and lesbians. Had she given her statement at a live event with real reporters, someone surely would have asked her about the WBC and its right to political speech. Her political supporters, like most Americans, are disgusted by the WBC's actions, but its hard to see how Palin could defend one form of violent political speech and deny another. Of course, the advantage of issuing her statement as a video on Facebook, she doesn't have to answer these kind of sticky questions. People can hear what they want to hear.
But, to my point, I think I understand her message pretty well. That said, her use of the term "blood libel" really does confuse me.
I would think, to most Americans, the term is not that commonly used or understood. Of course, a lot more people understand it today than they did yesterday. Oddly, however, most discussions of blood libel focus narrowly on its Medieval origins rather than its persistence into modernity (it contributed, to a small extent, to the Holocaust and is still common in some parts of Eastern Europe) and conflation with beliefs-only recently retracted by the Catholic Church-that Jews were the killers of Christ.
Yes, the phrase refers to a false accusation that resulted in the oppression and deaths of untold Jews at the hands of Christians, but I don't see why she used that turn of phrase.
Does it have some resonance with her political base that I don't understand? I can't believe, in this day and age of Google and Wikipedia, she or her handlers didn't understand blood libel's origins and see that at least some Jews would be offended? Would it matter to Plain and her handlers? Are conservative Jews an important part of their base?
Or, now that I think of it, maybe she was going for the Holocaust reference? Her ally Glenn Beck and many of his followers and members of the Tea Party have done their best to make Democrats the new fascists. Could it be that the use of "blood libel" was an effort to equate her accusers with Nazis? That somehow, if "we" let them get away with curtailing "our" speech, the next thing we know "they" will be stripping our liberties, taking our guns, and putting all patriotic Americans in death camps? Are allusions to death camps that much of a stretch from person who injected discussion of "death panels" into the health care debate?
I hadn't thought about it like that. Maybe.
Or did she just have another linguistic lapse? Did she mean to say "blood-stained libel" or "bloody libel"? That seems doubtful because this was a slick professional, and rehearsed video statement. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment or an unscripted moment. If she had a linguistic lapse it would never have made it into the final video. So, she clearly intended to say "blood libel"-but I'm still confused as to why?
Thoughts? Help?
So, maybe you can help me out here. I'm confused. I don't get the whole "blood libel" thing.
I finally sat down and listened to Sarah Palin's video today (see it here) and I did my best to view it through the eyes of her base and I know that she phrased it in such a way as to appeal broadly to those who hate government; who believe the Constitution, like the Bible, should be read literally; and who view Democrats like Gifford as the enemy.
I don't say that last part lightly-her opening delivers compassion-not for all the victims of the shooting in Tucson-but for the "innocent victims." The qualifier "innocent" allows a listener who may equate Democrats with anti-American communists and fascists to affirm that at least some of those shot got what they deserved. Am I imagining things? I don't think so: she uses the qualifier twice. Of course, from her perspective, it is one of those situations where she can invoke plausible deniability, attack anyone who raises the question for doubting her sincerity, and all the time while winking to her political base.
I can also see that while she invokes "foundational" rights and speaks a lot about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, while never mentioned, is core to her message. And that message is clear-despite the bloodshed, gun rights are paramount.
I also find it interesting that, while she offers a very vibrant defense of First Amendment rights for herself and conservative commentators and decries efforts to curb the violent political rhetoric, she is silent here on the rights of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals in its efforts to oppose U.S. laws providing equal rights to gays and lesbians. Had she given her statement at a live event with real reporters, someone surely would have asked her about the WBC and its right to political speech. Her political supporters, like most Americans, are disgusted by the WBC's actions, but its hard to see how Palin could defend one form of violent political speech and deny another. Of course, the advantage of issuing her statement as a video on Facebook, she doesn't have to answer these kind of sticky questions. People can hear what they want to hear.
But, to my point, I think I understand her message pretty well. That said, her use of the term "blood libel" really does confuse me.
I would think, to most Americans, the term is not that commonly used or understood. Of course, a lot more people understand it today than they did yesterday. Oddly, however, most discussions of blood libel focus narrowly on its Medieval origins rather than its persistence into modernity (it contributed, to a small extent, to the Holocaust and is still common in some parts of Eastern Europe) and conflation with beliefs-only recently retracted by the Catholic Church-that Jews were the killers of Christ.
Yes, the phrase refers to a false accusation that resulted in the oppression and deaths of untold Jews at the hands of Christians, but I don't see why she used that turn of phrase.
Does it have some resonance with her political base that I don't understand? I can't believe, in this day and age of Google and Wikipedia, she or her handlers didn't understand blood libel's origins and see that at least some Jews would be offended? Would it matter to Plain and her handlers? Are conservative Jews an important part of their base?
Or, now that I think of it, maybe she was going for the Holocaust reference? Her ally Glenn Beck and many of his followers and members of the Tea Party have done their best to make Democrats the new fascists. Could it be that the use of "blood libel" was an effort to equate her accusers with Nazis? That somehow, if "we" let them get away with curtailing "our" speech, the next thing we know "they" will be stripping our liberties, taking our guns, and putting all patriotic Americans in death camps? Are allusions to death camps that much of a stretch from person who injected discussion of "death panels" into the health care debate?
I hadn't thought about it like that. Maybe.
Or did she just have another linguistic lapse? Did she mean to say "blood-stained libel" or "bloody libel"? That seems doubtful because this was a slick professional, and rehearsed video statement. This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment or an unscripted moment. If she had a linguistic lapse it would never have made it into the final video. So, she clearly intended to say "blood libel"-but I'm still confused as to why?
Thoughts? Help?