The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

The Wall Street Journal ^ | JANUARY 10, 2011. | GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

[Scanian]

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

[Incorrigible]

Bump

[Yardstick]

KABOOM!

Our guys are firing back.

The lefties were in full swarm mode over the weekend — it’s a little demoralizing to see a tendentious NYT article followed by 1500 comments mostly from liberals — but our side is going to win the day and get the girl (i.e. the public). It’s just too obvious at this point that the facts are on our side and that the lefties WAY jumped the gun. Now our guys are going to make sure they regret it. It’s a target rich environment and they are going to mop up.

[Travis McGee]

[Scanian]

I’m sure it’s noticed by anyone with an open mind that they fly off the handle even before the dust settles and the facts come out.

[vaudine]

Let me make your post clearer--"It's just another leftist pothead deranged idiot in a planned act of violence...."

There was nothing random about this, except the victims outside of Giffords. This guy got a gun, took a taxi to the event, stood in line until he got up close.

vaudine

[sharon baker]

Hello

[Art in Idaho]

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Which is it? Huh? Answer the damn question MSM! Which is it? Keep it up and you're be totally irrelevant by 2012. We're fighting back on a daily basis. Bring it on. . .

[EBH]

I thought this needed a bump as the term is being used more and by even Palin herself.

[Scanian]

Maybe we ought to revive “waving the bloody shirt” while we’re at it.

[CedarDave]

The left-wing press is going crazy over Sarah’s use of the term “blood libel.” Glad to see she wasn’t the first to use it.