Palin's use of 'blood libel' and Reagan comment in statement on Tucson shooting
Palin's use of 'blood libel' and Reagan comment in statement on Tucson shooting - Fact Checker
Sarah Palin's video statement on the Tucson shootings is an interesting example of how meanings can change over time and can be ripped from their original context. This was obviously a well-crafted statement, not something said off the cuff, so Palin and her advisors certainly thought carefully about whether to include these elements. In the new
Fact Checker, from time to time we will provide context for the terms that politicians use without awarding any Pinocchios.
Blood Libel
"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."
--Sarah Palin
The term "blood libel" has a very distinct history. It refers to the false accusation, dating back centuries, that Jews would sacrifice Christian children for various nefarious or even religious purposes -- such as using their blood as an ingredient in the unleavened bread in Passover ceremonies. It was a core tenet of anti-Semitism, widely believed in medieval times and beyond, and often resulted in persecution, murders and other actions against Jews. A pro-Israel website lists more than two dozen examples of blood libel against Jews over the centuries, including as recently as 2005 in Russia.
Palin's use of the term has sparked controversy, in part because she is not Jewish and has often spoken of the United States as a Christian nation -- and because the target of the alleged shooter, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street tweeted, "We hope @SarahPalinUSA will recog that Jews are pained by, take offense at use of 'blood libel'"
But the "blood libel" phrase had already been used in the context of the Tucson tragedy. The conservative commentator Glenn Reynolds first raised it in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, asking, "Where is the decency in blood libel?" Others on the right picked up the phrase as well, leading conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg to wonder if this was appropriate.
"Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he wrote.
But Jim Geraghty, another commentator on National Review, has quickly collected many other examples of commentators and politicians using the phrase "blood libel" out of context. His examples include references to Sen. John Kerry's testimony to the Senate as Vietnam War veteran and the recount battle in Florida after the 2000 election.
None of those examples, of course, involved such a high-profile individual as Palin. Now that she has used it, the attention surrounding the phrase might yank it back to its origins -- or turn it into a new political talking point increasingly divorced from its original meaning.
Quoting Reagan
"President Reagan said, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.'"--Sarah Palin
This is a favorite quote of conservatives, as it speaks to individual responsibility. But few people remember when Reagan said it--or why.
The answer is July 31, 1968, at the platform hearings of the Republican convention in Miami that nominated Richard M. Nixon as the GOP candidate against then Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Reagan would not get elected until 12 years later, but his appearance before the platform hearings was a sensation and helped launch the fervor on the right that ultimately took him to the presidency.
But he made his remarks in the middle of a debate over the urban riots that had swept the nation in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Some in the party, such as New York Mayor John Lindsay, argued to the platform committee that policies that would help end poverty and racism were needed to stem urban violence. Reagan disagreed, saying society was not the root of crime and suggesting that Democrats had coddled criminals, ignoring the victims.
Reagan, to cheers, argued that "it is too simple to trace all crime to poverty or color. There is a crime problem in the suburbs as well as in the slums and the minority communities are victims of crime out of all proportion to their numbers. Criminals are not bigoted and they are not color blind; they...rob and maim and murder without reference to race, religion or neighborhood boundaries."
Then he made the statement that Palin cited approvingly. But Reagan was not talking about mass murderers or "acts of monstrous criminality," as Palin put it. He was arguing against more social-welfare programs.
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:30 PM ET |
Linear Mode
