A Minor Note on Sarah Palin’s “Blood Libel” Speech of January 12, 2011

In her speech earlier today, Sarah Palin seemed to be arguing that the inflamed and violent rhetoric of politicians and pundits cannot be legitimately seen as ever encouraging or provoking violence.

At least, something like that would need to be true if it were also true — as Palin states — that:  “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”  If such acts truly stand entirely on their own, then it can only be because nothing — nor anyone — has meaningfully influenced the criminals who commit them.  Otherwise, there is more than one cause of the acts, and thus more than one thing to blame.

The trouble with Palin’s suggestion that political speech has no meaningful influence on anyone’s actions is that almost every politician, pundit, and preacher in the world knows that she’s wrong.  What a public figure says can and often does significantly influence the behavior of others.

Ironically, if speeches were powerless to influence people’s behavior, then Sarah Palin would not have given her speech today — for it is clearly an attempt to influence people’s behavior.

No one that I know of is arguing that the entire responsibility for every politically motivated shooting in this country over the past ten years or so is wholly or completely borne by the inflamed and violent rhetoric of folks like Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and many, many others.   But to suggest, as Sarah Palin does, that such rhetoric has no meaningful influence at all on anyone’s behavior seems sheer bonkers.

 

7 thoughts on “A Minor Note on Sarah Palin’s “Blood Libel” Speech of January 12, 2011

  1. “Ironically, if speeches were powerless to influence people’s behavior, then Sarah Palin would not have given her speech today — for it is clearly an attempt to influence people’s behavior.”

    There you go again, Paul. Pointing out the glaringly obvious logical fallacy that undermines the entire premise of Ms. You Betcha’s speech aimed to influence her audience’s behavior. Whether her seeming failure to recognize her own fallacy is a result of her lack of brain cells or deliberate deception, the fact that some people take her seriously and buy into her rants scares me.

  2. But to suggest, as Sarah Palin does, that such rhetoric has no meaningful influence at all on anyone’s behavior seems sheer bonkers.

    A misspeak. She meant to say “such rhetoric should not have a meaningful influence on any “rational” person’s behavior.” But, then we would have to define “rational” and then locate one of them. Oh, well . . .

  3. The real irony IMHO is that Palin was complaining that while her words have no negative influence on other peoples behavior… the evil news media better watch what it says or it may negatively influence other peoples behavior.

    Essentially “my violent rhetoric is harmless but you pointing it out hurts my feelings.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s