Ironically, it may lead to a more honest discussion of the phrase than we’ve typically seen in the mainstream media. It may.
It took her only ten minutes to make sure that any criticism of Palin was qualified. And they say this isn't Palin's party. My first impression of the political and rhetorical escalation by Palin: she's going for broke on this. She thrives off this emotional polarization and is seeking, like all demagogues, to exploit it. She wants to turn this into a right-left war, thereby fortifying her grip on the right's base. If the establishment does nothing in response, she gains a more secure grip on the apparatus.
The problem with anger is that it makes it harder to think clearly. It’s just bad practice. … Even if the result is not physical violence, it is exaggerated political turbulence and discontent. Shafer seems to want as much of these as we can get, without actually coming to blows. Those African countries riven by tribe? They’re so spirited! Basically, aim for civil war, then pull it back just a notch.
That last sentence seems to me to be a pretty good definition of Rovian calculation to me.
Via Instapundit, right-wing blogger Dan Riehl has this to say about political discourse in America:
I’m known to get fired up, have a temper, be a bit of a bomb thrower, whatever. But I did a strange sort of thought experiment a day or so after listening to these reports out of Tucson. I tried to imagine myself actually engaging in violence against a leftist politician. Truth be told, the thought repulsed me purely on human terms. Besides that, not only would it be contrary to my values, I know it would hurt my cause politically. I mean, I actually thought that. Just imagine how much the Left would love it if a reasonably well known conservative committed a vile act like this. Hell, I wouldn’t give them the satisfaction, even were I capable of it.
Well let’s look at Riehl as a figure who is certainly part of the established institutional right. He garners regular Instapundit links, did consulting work for the Republican National Committee, and was recently recruited to the Breitbart family of Web sites. Mark Levin has guest posted on his site, and regularly compliments his work. So what exactly does he refer to when he says that he is “a bit of a bomb thrower,” one motivated by “passion,” but “not hate”? What kinds of statements can he make without jeopardizing his stature among leading voices in the conservative movement? Let’s consider a few examples:
– When Senator Harry Reid’s 69-year-old wife was in a serious car accident that resulted in a broken back and a broken neck, Riehl titled his post, “Isn’t It Time to Euthanize Reid’s Wife,” and wrote, “I’m not sure I quite understand this, given that cost is so important as a burden to taxpayers when it comes to health care. If Democrats want so badly to abort babies because of it, why are we bothering with someone who has a broken neck and back at 69? It sounds to me like she’s pretty well used up and has probably been living off the taxpayers for plenty of years to begin with.” When Media Matters flagged that post, Riehl responded, “I wish I knew those babies way back when. I’d have taken a coat hanger to them!”
– So many people took forceful exception to The Dish’s coverage of Trig Palin without sinking to this: “Sullivan has made himself into a raving retard over this past year with his Palin posts… Get a sex change, or at least start wearing Red outfits and high heels around the house playing Sarah dress-up for yourself and whatever gutter trash you can round up at the local adult book store. You look like an aging queen on her knees at some gloryhole waiting for a miraculous birth certificate to be slipped in from the next stall so you can engage your latest perversion until you climax all over yourself.”
– Remember that dead census worker they found? When the story broke, and based on no evidence whatsoever, Riehl wrote, “Was Census Worker Bill Sparkman A Child Predator?”
– Here’s what Riehl wrote about Megan McCain: “The Obama’s ought to adopt this misguided girl so Michelle can get her into an obesity program. Her arms are starting to look like flippers and it ain’t all about the breasts. With the right hat and a honky horn, I’d think she was a trained seal! I mean, seriously: arr arr arr. That poor girl. As for the commentary, what is wrong with Americans today? People actually watch this dumb stuff?? Fat, dumpy and stupid is no way to go through life, Megan. Get a grip on yourself, dear, instead of that next Krispy Kreme. You’ll live longer, not that that’s necessarily a good thing.”
Usually someone like Riehl isn’t worth acknowledging. There are vile bloggers on the right and the left. What’s notable is that this sort of rhetoric – and there are plenty more examples – isn’t an impediment to writing at Human Events or Big Government, or hosting Mark Levin guests posts. It doesn’t even prevent Instapundit from taking you seriously when you write a post claiming that your rhetoric isn’t motivated by hate (just the sort of “passion” that you regard as the Tea Party’s strength).
Infantile bile is part of the blogosphere. But the adults in the conservative movement are either silent or complicit in this. And from the reaction to the debate over inflammatory rhetoric so far, they seem willing to fire it up some more.
"If every person in the world was like Sarah Palin, there probably wouldn’t even be need for government because no one would be in danger of any kind. If every person were like Sarah Palin, this world would be a peaceful, beautiful world to live in," – Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ).
The leader of the GOP base has told us a lot today. She has told us two things. She can see absolutely nothing awry in the inflammatory and violent rhetoric she and others have deployed so aggressively in the past two years. Nothing. The attempted assassination of a congresswoman after relentless demonization of her, after her opponent brandished an M-16 at a campaign rally, after a brick was thrown through her campaign window, after she personally complained about Palin’s own metaphorical cross-hairs on her … this is an utterly, totally, completely irrelevant set of events:
Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.
Really? So why was it in any way relevant that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorists”? If the acts of the radical left began and ended with them alone, why was Palin so insistent in the campaign on linking Obama to the Weather Underground – even though he’d met them decades after their crimes?
Then there is the usual shocking and inflammatory language. At a time when nerves are truly frayed, when blood lies on the ground, Palin offers us this:
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.
Notice the paranoid and conspiratorial word: “manufacture.” Now recall what actually happened, which is that a congresswoman was shot through the head after being subjected to extraordinary levels of hatred and demonization and threats. Because that very congresswoman had herself complained at the time of the “consequences” of Palin’s metaphorical use of cross-hairs, reporters, bloggers and regular human beings on Facebook made that obvious connection.
There was nothing “manufactured” about this. It was the most obvious set of observations to be made in the immediate aftermath. To call this understandable concern about the impact of violent rhetoric and imagery on disturbed minds a manufactured “blood libel” – equating critics of extreme rhetoric of being the equivalent of Nazis or medieval anti-Semites – is to up the ante at a time when leaders really need to calm emotions. We know this much right now: Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message – even at a time of national crisis – was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.
One would have thought that Palin, like any responsible person in her shoes right now, could have mustered some sort of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of what she had done in the campaign and what happened afterwards. Wouldn’t you? If you had publicly defended a map with cross-hairs on a congresswoman’s district, and that congresswoman had subsequently been shot, would you not be able to express even some measure of regret at what has taken place, even while denying, rightly, any actual guilt? Could you not even acknowledge the possibility that your critics have and had a point, including the chief Palin-critic on this, who happens to be struggling for her life in hospital, Gabrielle Giffords.
But no. That would require acknowledging misjudgment. Palin cannot acknowledge misjudgment, as she cannot admit error. It would require rising to an occasion, rather than sinking to it. And to moderate that tone, to acknowledge that one can make an error, to defend oneself from unfair accusations while acknowledging the need for a calmer discourse in future – this is beyond her.
It is, of course, also her strategy. She can only win in a hugely polarized country. She has as little support outside the Republican base as she has a cult following within it. And she has decided that this occasion for introspection is actually an opportunity to double down.
The Democrats also used a “target” map. It’s not equivalent, but I think it is worth noting. Yes, the 2004 flier from the Democratic Leadership Council looks like a dart board, and there are no names. But it still used phrases like “behind enemy lines.” The left doesn’t have many gun fetishes to stoke, so that’s another difference, but it’s still worth noting that Sarah Palin didn’t start this type of politics. She and the Ailes component have pushed it higher and higher and that should also be acknowledged.
Of course Palin didn’t start this kind of politics. Of course, if she is human, she must feel awful about the coincidence of her metaphorical cross-hairs and Loughner’s real ones. Of course she never intended anything like this to happen. Of course the critique of extreme incivility applies to both parties.
But one side will have to do a lot more self-repair than the other. And it will do them more good than they currently seem to grasp. Boehner could maybe do it. So far, he’s been dignified, restrained and pitch-perfect. How wonderful if this unlikely guy led a real Republican revolution – in tone.
Nate Silver studies the evolution of the debate. He makes several insightful points:
It may … be that gun control has became less a priority for the Democratic Party’s key stakeholders. On one hand, major cities — where Democratic voters and donors have long been concentrated — became much safer during the decade of the 2000s, and so gun violence would have seemed a less immediate threat to an Upper East Side liberal in 2008 than it would have in 1988.
On the other hand, gun control fits somewhat awkwardly into the constellation of political issues. On issues like gay rights and abortion, Democrats have advocated for a more expansive interpretation of the protections offered by the Constitution, something which stricter controls on gun ownership are arguably conflict.
The shaved character in the movies is almost never happy. Nobody tapping the primal forces he's tapping could ever be happy. But being angry is too clichéd to be accepted. Hence Loughner's bent smile, which recycles Jack Nicholson's psycho grin from The Shiningand any number of Bruce Dern and Jack Palance grimaces. Loughner won't be content until people understand that he's a sadistic bastard capable of greater transgressions than shooting innocent people at point-blank range and that killing a 9-year-old only hints at the monster inside him.
The bullet, reportedly fired from a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, entered the left side of the back of her head and traveled through her brain, exiting through her forehead. This “through and through” course indicates that the bullet was probably not of the variety designed to expand or break into smaller fragments once inside the body, which would have caused a much more severe injury. Further, the Congresswoman would have sustained much more damage had the bullet ricocheted off the inside of her skull, or if it had remained lodged in the brain matter where it could “migrate around” and cause additional harm, says [Dr. Keith L. Black].
(Photo of Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, by her bedside, via TDW)
The Dish 